Assessing the influence of feedback-inclusive rapid prototyping on understanding the semantics of parallel UML statecharts by novice modellers

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 82, Issue , 2017, Pages 159-172

  Sedrakyan, Gayane ^a   Poelmans, Stephan ^b   Snoeck, Monique ^c  

^a Faculty of Business and Economics   (United States)

^b Centre for Information Management   (Belgium)

^c Research Center for Management Informatics   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Automated feedback; Conceptual modelling; Model pragmatics; Prototyping simulation; Statechart; Testability of requirements

Indexed keywords

PERSONNEL TRAINING; RAPID PROTOTYPING; SEMANTICS; STUDENTS; SYSTEM THEORY;

ANALYSIS AND MODELLING; AUTOMATED CODE GENERATION; AUTOMATED FEEDBACK; CONCEPTUAL MODELLING; FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS; STATE CHARTS; TESTABILITY;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84994832137     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. [1] Banks, J., Introduction to simulation. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Winter Simulation: Simulation-A Bridge to the Future, Volume 1, 1999.
2. [2] Bavota, G., Gravino, C., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., Tortora, G., Genero, M., Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Identifying the weaknesses of UML class diagrams during data model comprehension. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 2011, Springer, 168-182.
3. [3] Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., Merseguer, J., From UML sequence diagrams and statecharts to analysable petri net models. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the The 3rd International Workshop on Software and Performance, 2002.
4. [4] Bézivin, J., Model driven engineering: An emerging technical space. Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering, 2006, Springer, 36-64.
5. [5] Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., Schellens, T., Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Comput. Edu. 54:4 (2010), 1145-1156.
6. [6] Bradley, J.H., Paul, R., Seeman, E., Analyzing the structure of expert knowledge. Inf., Manage. 43:1 (2006), 77-91, 10.1016/j.im.2004.11.009.
7. [7] Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schweda, C.M., A meta-language for EA information modeling state-of-the-art and requirements elicitation. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, 2010, Springer, 169-181.
8. [8] Capretz, L.F., A brief history of the object-oriented approach. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 28(2), 2003, 6.
9. [9] Carbone, M., Santucci, G., Fast&&Serious: a UML based metric for effort estimation. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 6th ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE’02), 2002.
10. [10] Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A., Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q., 19(2), 1995.
11. [11] Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Morasca, S., Piattini, M., Assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states—a family of empirical studies. Empir. Softw. Eng. 14:6 (2009), 685-719.
12. [12] Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Manso, M.E., Piattini, M., Evaluating the effect of composite states on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, 2005, Springer, 113-125.
13. [13] Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Morasca, S., Piattini, M., Using practitioners for assessing the understandability of UML statechart diagrams with composite states. Advances in Conceptual Modeling-Foundations and Applications, 2007, Springer, 213-222.
14. [14] Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Genero, M., Piattini, M., Using controlled experiments for validating uml statechart diagrams measures. Software Process and Product Measurement, 2008, Springer, 129-138.
15. [15] Cruz-Lemus, J.A., Maes, A., Genero, M., Poels, G., Piattini, M., The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of UML statechart diagrams. Inf. Sci. 180:11 (2010), 2209-2220.
16. [16] Damassa, D.A., Sitko, T., Simulation Technologies in Higher Education: uses, trends, and implications. EDUCAUSE Center Anal. Res. (ECAR) Res. Bull., 2010.
17. [17] Dan, L., Danning, L., Towards a formal behavioral semantics for UML interactions. Paper Presented at the Information Science and Engineering (ISISE), 2010 International Symposium on, 2010.
18. [18] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35:8 (1989), 982-1003.
19. [19] Dedene, G., Snoeck, M., Formal deadlock elimination in an object oriented conceptual schema. Data Knowl. Eng. 15:1 (1995), 1-30.
20. [20] Denger, C., Ciolkowski, M., High quality statecharts through tailored, perspective-based inspections. Paper Presented at the Euromicro Conference, 2003. Proceedings. 29th, 2003.
21. [21] Embley, D.W., Thalheim, B., Handbook of Conceptual Modeling: Theory, Practice, and Research Challenges. 2012, Springer.
22. [22] Erickson, J., Siau, K., Can UML be simplified? Practitioner use of UML in separate domains. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD'07), held in Conjunction with the 19th Conference on Advanced Information Systems (CAiSE'07), Trondheim, Norway, 2007.
23. [23] Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R., Requirements-Level Semantics for UML Statecharts. 2000, Springer.
24. [24] European Commission, E. U., Innovative teaching and learning. Opening Up Education: innovative Teaching and Learning for all Through New Technologies and Open Educational Resources. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2013, European Commission.
25. [25] Genero, M., Miranda, D., Piattini, M., Defining metrics for UML statechart diagrams in a methodological way. Conceptual Modeling for Novel Application Domains, 2003, Springer, 118-128.
26. [26] Genero, M., Piattini, M., Chaudron, M., Quality of UML models. Inf. Softw. Tech. 51:12 (2009), 1629-1630.
27. [27] Grubišić, A., Stankov, S., Rosić, M., Žitko, B., Controlled experiment replication in evaluation of e-learning system's educational influence. Comput. Edu. 53:3 (2009), 591-602.
28. [28] Gustas, R., Conceptual modeling and integration of static and dynamic aspects of service architectures. Ontology, Conceptualization and Epistemology for Information Systems, Software Engineering and Service Science, 2010, Springer, 17-32.
29. [29] Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Multivariate Data Analysis, 6, 2006, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
30. [30] Hess, T.A., Investigation of Prototype Roles in Conceptual Design Using Case Study and Protocol Study Methods. 2012, Clemson University.
31. [31] Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28:1 (2004), 75-105.
32. [32] Ingalls, R.G., Introduction to simulation. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Winter Simulation, 2008.
33. [33] Ives, B., Olson, M.H., Baroudi, J.J., The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun. ACM 26:10 (1983), 785-793.
34. [34] Keller, C., User acceptance of virtual learning environments: a case study from three Northern European an universities. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst., 25, 2009.
35. [35] Lange, C.F., Improving the quality of UML models in practice. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2006.
36. [36] Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A., Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. Softw. IEEE 11:2 (1994), 42-49.
37. [37] Liu, S., Liu, Y., André, E., Choppy, C., Sun, J., Wadhwa, B., Dong, J.S., A formal semantics for complete UML state machines with communications. Paper Presented at the Integrated Formal Methods, 2013.
38. [38] Merseguer, J., Campos, J., Bernardi, S., Donatelli, S., A compositional semantics for UML state machines aimed at performance evaluation. Paper Presented at the Discrete Event Systems, 2002. Proceedings. Sixth International Workshop on, 2002.
39. [39] Nelson, H.J., Poels, G., Genero, M., Piattini, M., A conceptual modeling quality framework. Softw. Qual. J. 20:1 (2012), 201-228, 10.1007/s11219-011-9136-9.
40. [40] Otero, M.C., Dolado, J.J., Evaluation of the comprehension of the dynamic modeling in UML. Inf. Softw. Tech. 46:1 (2004), 35-53.
41. [41] Pastor, O., Gómez, J., Insfrán, E., Pelechano, V., The OO-Method approach for information systems modeling: from object-oriented conceptual modeling to automated programming. Inf. Syst. 26:7 (2001), 507-534.
42. [42] Poelmans, S., Wessa, P., A constructivist approach in an e-learning environment for statistics. Interac. Learn. Environ. (accepted), 2013.
43. [43] Reggio, G., Leotta, M., Ricca, F., Clerissi, D., What are the used UML diagrams? A preliminary survey. Paper Presented at the EESSMOD@ MoDELS, 2013.
44. [44] Schenk, K.D., Vitalari, N.P., Davis, K.S., Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: what do we know and what do we do. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 15:1 (1998), 9-50, 10.2307/40398371.
45. [45] Sedrakyan, G., Process-Oriented Feedback Perspectives Based on Feedback-Enabled Simulation and Learning Process Data Analytics. 2016, KU Leuven (PhD thesis).
46. [46] Sedrakyan, G., De Weerdt, J., Snoeck, M., Process-mining enabled feedback: “tell me what I did wrong” vs. “tell me how to do it right”. Comput. Hum. Behav. 57(C) (2016), 352-376, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.054.
47. [47] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Technology-enhanced support for learning conceptual modeling. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, 2012, Springer, 435-449.
48. [48] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Feedback-enabled MDA-prototyping effects on modeling knowledge. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, 2013, Springer, 411-425.
49. [49] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., A PIM-to-Code requirements engineering framework. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of Modelsward 2013-1st International Conference on Model-driven Engineering and Software Development-Proceedings, 2013.
50. [50] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Do we need to teach testing skills in courses on requirements engineering and modelling?. Paper Presented at the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2014.
51. [51] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Lightweight semantic prototyper for conceptual modeling. Advances in Conceptual Modeling, 2014, Springer, 298-302.
52. [52] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Effects of simulation on novices’ understanding of the concept of inheritance in conceptual modeling. Advances in Conceptual Modeling, 2015, Springer, 327-336.
53. [53] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Enriching model execution with feedback to support testing of semantic conformance between models and requirements: Design and evaluation of feedback automation architecture. PaperPresented at the Modelsward 2016 - 4th International Conference on Model-driven Engineering and Software Development, Rome, Italy., 2016.
54. [54] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., De Weerdt, J., Process mining analysis of conceptual modeling behavior of novices - empirical study using JMermaid modeling and experimental logging environment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 41(C) (2014), 486-503, 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.054.
55. [55] Sedrakyan, G., Snoeck, M., Poelmans, S., Assessing the effectiveness of feedback enabled simulation in teaching conceptual modeling. Comput. Edu. 78 (2014), 367-382.
56. [56] Segars, A.H., Grover, V., Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness. MIS Q. 17:4 (1993), 517-525.
57. [57] Siau, K., Cao, Q., Unified modeling language (UML)-a complexity analysis. J. Database Manage., 12(1), 2001, 26.
58. [58] Siau, K., Erickson, J., Lee, L.Y., Theoretical vs. practical complexity: the case of UML. J. Database Manage., 16(3), 2005, 40.
59. [59] Snoeck, M., Enterprise Information Systems Engineering: The MERODE Approach. 2014, Springer.
60. [60] Snoeck, M., Dedene, G., Existence Dependency: the key to semantic integrity between structural and behavioral aspects of object types. Software Eng. IEEE Trans. 24:4 (1998), 233-251.
61. [61] Snoeck, M., Haesen, R., Buelens, H., De Backer, M., Monsieur, G., Computer aided modelling exercises. Inf. Edu. 6:1 (2007), 231-248.
62. [62] Snoeck, M., Michiels, C., Dedene, G., Consistency by construction: the case of MERODE. Conceptual Modeling for Novel Application Domains, 2003, Springer, 105-117.
63. [63] Trochim, W.M., The research methods knowledge base, internet WWW page. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php, 2000 Version current as of September 2015.
64. [64] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q., 27(3), 2003.
65. [65] Wilmont, I., Hengeveld, S., Barendsen, E., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Cognitive mechanisms of conceptual modelling. Ng, W., Storey, V., Trujillo, J., (eds.) Conceptual Modeling, 8217, 2013, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 74-87.
66. [66] Wixom, B.H., Todd, P.A., A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 16:1 (2005), 85-102.
67. [67] Yang, M.C., A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Des. Stud. 26:6 (2005), 649-669.