Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

A Method for Assisting Novices Creating Class Diagrams Based on the Instructor's Class Layout

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Automatic layout conversion raises novices' class-diagram similarity in a one-hour experiment.

desk verdict The paper's novel hook—using the instructor's layout as a hint—is worth testing, but this experiment can't attribute the gains to layout because the experimental group also got color-coded name feedback the control may not have had. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09116 v2 pith:KJMPJY2I submitted 2025-05-14 cs.SE cs.CY

Yuta Saito , Takehiro Kokubu , Takafumi Tanaka , Atsuo Hazeyama , Hiroaki Hashiura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.CY
keywords classdiagramlayoutmodelingexercisesnovicelearnersautomaticconversionsimilarityfeedbackUMLrelationship
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that automatically moving a novice's class diagram onto the instructor's class coordinates is effective feedback during a one-hour modeling exercise. The support matters because modeling exercises give learners little real-time feedback, and a bare similarity score can make them abandon and redraw their diagram instead of fixing it. The proposed method rearranges only the learner's existing classes to the instructor's layout while keeping relationships attached, so the learner sees which classes have counterparts and where gaps sit without being handed the correct answer. In a randomized comparison with twenty novices, the group with layout conversion achieved significantly higher overall diagram similarity and relationship similarity than the control group, while class-only similarity did not differ significantly.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is automatic layout conversion: the learner's classes are matched to the instructor's classes using per-class similarity CS with a threshold of 0.4 and lexicographic tie-breaking, the matched classes are moved to the coordinates of their counterparts in the correct diagram, unmatched classes are stacked at the top-left corner (0,0), and existing relationships are preserved because they are stored as endpoint references rather than coordinates. A bundled secondary feedback colors each class and attribute name red for an exact name match, black for a partial match, and blue for a mismatch. The layout conversion carries the argument by letting the learner see, from position alone, which of their classes belong in the correct model and where related classes sit, making gaps and candidate relationships visible without displaying the correct diagram.

What would settle it

Run the same one-hour exercise with a third group that receives only the red/black/blue name-color feedback and no automatic layout conversion; if that group's CDS and RSall match the experimental group's, the paper's attribution of the improvement to layout conversion is falsified. A complementary check: replace the instructor's coordinates with randomly chosen positions and see whether the benefit disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the layout of the correct answer is itself a usable feedback channel. Concretely, in the authors' experiment, the experimental group's class-diagram similarity to the instructor's model (CDS) was significantly higher than the control group's ($p = 0.0235$), and so was relationship similarity RSall ($p = 0.0050$); class similarity CSall showed no significant difference ($p = 0.2886$). The authors interpret this as showing that automatic layout conversion helped novices mainly by narrowing the space of possible relationships and by suggesting missing elements through whitespace, rather than by directly teaching which classes exist.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the higher similarity scores came from the automatic layout conversion rather than from the red/black/blue color feedback on class and attribute names, because the experiment's control group did not receive that color feedback separately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layout can act as a hint that does not reveal the correct answer directly, so learners can check and revise repeatedly during an exercise without being shown the instructor's model.
  • The benefit is concentrated in relationship creation: relationship similarity RSall differed significantly while class-only similarity CSall did not, so the layout appears to help learners see which associations are possible.
  • The effect appears in the later phase of the exercise, around and after the 20-minute mark, when learners are correcting their diagrams, suggesting that layout feedback helps resolve the stuck state that similarity scores alone did not.
  • The number of times learners invoked the conversion correlated strongly with final diagram similarity ($r = 0.7877$), indicating that repeated use of the feedback is associated with larger improvements.
  • The approach can be automated, which matters because manual layout feedback would require roughly an hour of instructor effort per learner for the volume of feedback observed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the red/black/blue name-color feedback was bundled with layout conversion in the experimental tool, the design does not yet isolate layout conversion from color feedback; a follow-up comparing layout conversion with and without the color hints could determine whether the two reinforce each other.
  • Editorial inference: if the active mechanism is the layout's narrowing of relationship options, then rearranging classes to randomly chosen positions should produce weaker or no gains compared with rearranging to the instructor's coordinates, which is testable.
  • Editorial inference: the experiment measured similarity to the same instructor's diagram during a single exercise, so it remains open whether the skill transfers to new modeling tasks without layout support; a delayed post-test would answer that.
  • Editorial inference: the observed correlation between number of uses and final similarity could reflect motivated learners using the function more rather than the function causing improvement; a fixed-feedback-schedule experiment would separate these explanations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a method for automatically converting the layout of a learner's class diagram to match that of an instructor's correct example, implemented as an extension of the KIfU tool. The method also includes a color-based feedback function that colors class and attribute names according to their name similarity to the correct model. The authors report an experiment with 20 students randomly assigned to a group with the automatic layout conversion function and a control group without it, measuring outcomes with Tanaka et al.'s class diagram similarity (CDS), class similarity (CSall), and relationship similarity (RSall). They find significantly higher CDS (p=0.0235) and RSall (p=0.0050) in the experimental group and conclude that automatic layout conversion is effective feedback for novice modelers.

Significance. If the causal claim were valid, the paper would make a useful contribution to automated feedback in modeling education, with a concrete tool implementation and an empirical evaluation. The strengths are the tool implementation, the use of an established similarity metric, and the attempt to measure learning processes via similarity transitions. However, the experiment does not isolate the layout conversion from the separately added color feedback, and this confound directly threatens all of the paper's positive conclusions. The statistical analysis also relies on multiple uncorrected t-tests. Within the current design, the central claim is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-D, §III-E, §IV-B] The experimental manipulation is confounded. The experimental group received both automatic layout conversion and color-based name feedback, while the control group received neither. The control group is defined only as using KIfU without the automatic layout conversion function, with no statement that the color feedback was also present in the control condition. Because the outcome metrics CDS, CSall, and RSall are computed from name similarities (Section II-C), the color feedback alone could plausibly produce the observed improvements in CDS and RSall. Consequently, the significant differences reported in Section V-A do not establish that automatic layout conversion, rather than the color hints, was effective. This is the central claim of the paper, so the experiment as reported cannot support it.
  2. [§V-A, Figures 3–5, Table II] The paper reports the results of multiple t-tests (CDS, CSall, RSall, per-class CS for six classes, and multiple time-point comparisons in Figure 7) without any adjustment for multiple comparisons. At α=0.05 with this many tests, the probability of at least one false positive is substantially higher than 0.05. For instance, the CDS p-value of 0.0235 is not strong evidence once the number of tests is taken into account. The authors should either apply a correction (e.g., Bonferroni or FDR) or clearly state the exploratory nature of these tests.
  3. [§III-A and §II-C] The automatic layout conversion identifies corresponding classes using the same Tanaka et al. similarity measure (with a threshold of CS≥0.4) that is later used to compute the evaluation metrics CDS, CSall, and RSall. This means the experimental condition is directly optimized against the evaluation metric, while the control condition is not. This design choice inflates the likelihood of finding a difference and limits the conclusions to this specific metric. The threat-to-validity section should address this alignment.
  4. [§VI] The threats-to-validity discussion lists only the choice of similarity metric and the complexity of the correct example. It omits the treatment confound described above and the multiple-comparison issue. Both are more serious threats to the validity of the reported conclusions than the two issues named.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7] The axis labels appear garbled (e.g., '/aj17/aj15/aj17' and '/aj36/aj40'), likely due to a PDF rendering artifact; please provide legible figures.
  2. [§IV-A] In RQ1, 'effect' should be 'affect' in 'How does the layout of the correct example effect the creation'.
  3. [§IV-B] Please clarify explicitly whether the control group received the color-based name feedback; as written, the group definitions do not specify this, which is essential for interpreting the results.
  4. [§V-A] The statement 'This indicates that learners naturally avoid overlapping elements without being explicitly told about layout rules' is based on the observation that no submitted diagrams had overlaps, but overlapping elements may be avoided by default tool behavior; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical comparison, and the shared Tanaka metric is a measurement instrument rather than a generative constraint.

full rationale

The paper's claim that automatic layout conversion was effective feedback rests on a randomized two-group experiment (Section IV-B) and t-tests on CDS (p=0.0235) and RSall (p=0.0050) (Section V-A). This is not a derivation in which the outcome is algebraically determined by the inputs. The automatic layout conversion uses class-by-class similarity CS to find corresponding classes (Section III-A, threshold CS >= 0.4), and the evaluation uses the same Tanaka et al. metric family (Sections II-C and IV-A). However, moving classes to the instructor's coordinates does not by itself change any name or relationship string, so the metric cannot change unless the learner subsequently edits the diagram; the observed gains are contingent behavioral outcomes rather than identities. The self-citations to the Tanaka similarity [27] and KIfU [28] provide the measurement and tooling, but the effectiveness conclusion is not forced by those references and could have failed empirically. One validity concern, which is not a circularity, is that the implementation bundles a color-based name feedback function (Sections III-D and III-E) with the layout conversion, and the control condition is defined only as "using KIfU without the automatic layout conversion function" (Section IV-B), leaving unclear whether the color feedback was present for controls; Section VI's threats to validity do not mention this confound. That is a possible alternative explanation for the significant differences, but it is a threat to construct validity rather than a reduction of the prediction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit free parameters to its experimental data; the thresholds used in the tool are design choices. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the validity of the similarity metric and layout quality, and on the untested assumption that the experimental design isolates layout conversion from the color feedback. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Corresponding-class CS threshold = 0.4
    Hand-chosen minimum class similarity (CS) for matching a student class to an instructor class. This value determines which classes are rearranged and which are moved to (0,0), shaping all feedback. No sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Color feedback thresholds = 1.0 red, intermediate black, 0.0 blue
    Hand-chosen cutoffs for name similarity that trigger the red/black/blue feedback. These thresholds are arbitrary and were not validated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Tanaka similarity metric (CDS) is a valid measure of the quality of a class diagram for learning purposes.
    The paper uses CDS as both the internal matching score in the tool (Section II-C) and as the evaluation outcome (Section IV-B). If CDS does not track learning, the experiment's dependent variable is not meaningful.
  • domain assumption Layout quality affects learner understanding and performance.
    Motivated by Störrle and others in Section II-B; the paper assumes that moving students to a good layout helps them learn. This is plausible but not tested in this study.
  • domain assumption A single correct class diagram exists for the exercise.
    The evaluation compares all students to one instructor-created correct example (Appendix A.2). If the problem has multiple valid models, the similarity metric penalizes legitimate alternative designs.
  • domain assumption The experimental design isolates the layout conversion effect from the color feedback effect.
    The paper attributes observed improvements to layout conversion (Section V-A) without testing a condition that has color feedback but no layout conversion. This is the central unverified premise.
  • standard math Standard assumptions for the two-tailed t-test (independence, approximate normality) hold for the similarity scores.
    The paper uses t-tests (Section IV-B) but does not report normality checks or effect sizes; with n=20 the assumptions are not verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Method for Assisting Novices Creating Class Diagrams Based on the Instructor's Class Layout." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJMPJY2I

@misc{pith2026250509116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Method for Assisting Novices Creating Class Diagrams Based on the Instructor's Class Layout},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJMPJY2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09116}
}
read the original abstract

Nowadays, modeling exercises on software development objects are conducted in higher education institutions for information technology. Not only are there many defects such as missing elements in the models created by learners during the exercises, but the layout of elements in the class diagrams often differs significantly from the correct answers created by the instructors. In this paper, we focus on the above problem and propose a method to provide effective support to learners during modeling exercises by automatically converting the layout of the learner's class diagram to that of the instructor, in addition to indicating the correctness of the artifacts to the learners during the exercises. The proposed method was implemented and evaluated as a tool, and the results indicate that the automatic layout conversion was an effective feedback to the learners.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Automatic layout conversion (left: student’s work, center: student’s work after automatic layout conversion, right: correct example) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Specific example of feedback using the color of element names [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the similarity CDS obtained in the model￾ing exercise. As a result of the t-test, a significant difference was observed in the similarity CDS (p = 0.0235, α = 0.05).       [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of CSall between the experimental groups (EG) and control groups (CG) This result indicates that automatic layout conversion is ben￾eficial feedback for learners’ class diagram modeling. Next, we investigated what kind of effect this has on each element of t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the number of times the automatic conversion function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transition of CDS for the experimental groups (EG) and control groups (CG) I couldn’t draw relationships” and “I somehow managed to draw them.” B. RQ2: When does the influence of the layout become ap￾parent? We investigated the transition of similarity during the model…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ben-Ari, M.: Constructivism in computer science educa- tion, ACM SIGCSE Bull., V ol. 30, No. 1(1998), pp. 257– 261

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    of the 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C) , Sep

    Bian, W., Alam, O., and Kienzle, J.: Automated Grading of Class Diagrams, Proc. of the 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C) , Sep. 2019, pp. 700–709

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    of the 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS2019), May

    Bogdanova, D.: Towards Personalized Feedback in a Smart Learning Environment For Teaching Conceptual Modelling, Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS2019), May. 2019, pp. 1–5

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Boubekeur, Y ., Mussbacher, G., and McIntosh, S.: Au- tomatic assessment of students’ software models using a simple heuristic and machine learning, Proc. of the 23rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Pro- ceedings (MODELS ’20) , New York, NY , USA, Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET) , May

    Chren, S., Buhnova, B., Macak, M., Daubner, L., and Rossi, B.: Mistakes in UML Diagrams: Analysis of Student Projects in a Software Engineering Course, Proc. of the 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET) , May. 2019, pp. 100–109

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    T., Di Ruscio, D., and Pierantonio, A.: Finding with NEMO: a recom- mender system to forecast the next modeling operations, Proc

    Di Rocco, J., Di Sipio, C., Nguyen, P. T., Di Ruscio, D., and Pierantonio, A.: Finding with NEMO: a recom- mender system to forecast the next modeling operations, Proc. of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS ’22), New York, NY , USA, Association for Computing Machinery, Oct. 2022, pp. 154–164

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    of the First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis , Jun

    Eichelberger, H.: Aesthetics of class diagrams, Proc. of the First International Workshop on Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis , Jun. 2002, pp. 23–31

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    2015, pp

    El Ahmar, Y ., G ´erard, S., Dumoulin, C., and Le Pal- lec, X.: Enhancing the communication value of UML models with graphical layers, 2015 ACM/IEEE 18th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MODELS) , Oct. 2015, pp. 64– 69

    work page 2015

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    L., Rader, K

    Ergin, H., Walling, I. L., Rader, K. P., and Dobbs, D. J.: A Study of Modeling Perception in a First-Time Modeling Class, Proc. of the 2019 ACM/IEEE 22nd International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C) , May. 2019, pp. 680–689

    2019

  2. [10]

    W.: UMLGrader: an automated class diagram grader, J

    Hasker, R. W.: UMLGrader: an automated class diagram grader, J. Comput. Sci. Coll. , V ol. 27, No. 1(2011), pp. 47–54

    2011

  3. [11]

    of the 12th Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering (JCKBSE 2018) Corfu, Greece

    Ichinohe, Y ., Hashiura, H., Tanaka, T., Hazeyama, A., and Takase, H.: Effectiveness of Automated Grading Tool Utilizing Similarity for Conceptual Modeling., Knowledge-Based Software Engineering: 2018, Proc. of the 12th Joint Conference on Knowledge-Based Software Engineering ...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Karasneh, B., Jolak, R., and Chaudron, M. R. V .: Using Examples for Teaching Software Design: An Experiment Using a Repository of UML Class Diagrams, Proc. of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC2015), Dec. 2015, pp. 261–268

    2015

  5. [13]

    and Namba, Y .: An Education Program for Requirement Process of Information System Design Us- ing Conceptual Data Modeling, IPSJ Journal , V ol

    Kato, Y . and Namba, Y .: An Education Program for Requirement Process of Information System Design Us- ing Conceptual Data Modeling, IPSJ Journal , V ol. 50, No. 2(2009), pp. 626–636. (In Japanese)

    2009

  6. [14]

    2011-CE- 109, No

    Kogiso, T., Toyama, S., and Yuura, K.: Development and Evaluation of a Modeling Supporting System for Students, IPSJ SIG Technical Report(CE), V ol. 2011-CE- 109, No. 5, Mar. 2011, pp. 1–9. (In Japanese)

    2011

  7. [15]

    M., von Frankenberg, N., and Bruegge, B.: An Interactive Learning Method to En- gage Students in Modeling, Proc

    Krusche, S., Reimer, L. M., von Frankenberg, N., and Bruegge, B.: An Interactive Learning Method to En- gage Students in Modeling, Proc. of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE- SEET2020), Oct. 20...

    2020

  8. [16]

    of the 15th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE ’08), USA, IEEE Computer Society, Oct

    Kuhn, A., Loretan, P., and Nierstrasz, O.: Consistent Layout for Thematic Software Maps, Proc. of the 15th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE ’08), USA, IEEE Computer Society, Oct. 2008, pp. 209– 218

    2008

  9. [17]

    of the 77th National Convention of IPSJ , V ol

    Miyajima, K., Ogata, S., Kayama, M., and Okano, K.: A Support Tool for Rule-based Scoring of Class Dia- grams in UML Modeling Education, Proc. of the 77th National Convention of IPSJ , V ol. 2015, No. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 841–842. (In Japanese)

    2015

  10. [18]

    A., and Mahmud, H.: A Tool to Automate Student UML diagram Evaluation, Academic 10 Journal of Nawroz University, V ol

    Modi, S., Taher, H. A., and Mahmud, H.: A Tool to Automate Student UML diagram Evaluation, Academic 10 Journal of Nawroz University, V ol. 10, No. 2, Jun. 2021, pp. 189–198

    2021

  11. [19]

    C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., and Britton, C.: UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension, Proc

    Purchase, H. C., Colpoys, L., McGill, M., Carrington, D., and Britton, C.: UML class diagram syntax: an empirical study of comprehension, Proc. of the 2001 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualisation (APVis ’01) , AUS, Australian Computer Society, Inc., Dec. 2001, pp. 113–120

    2001

  12. [20]

    and Kuchen, H.: Towards an E- assessment tool for advanced software engineering skills, Proc

    Reischmann, T. and Kuchen, H.: Towards an E- assessment tool for advanced software engineering skills, Proc. of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16) , New York, NY , USA, Association for Computing Ma- chinery, Nov. 2...

    2016

  13. [21]

    of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS2019), Jan

    Reuter, R., Hauser, F., Muckelbauer, D., Stark, T., Antoni, E., Mottok, J., and Wolff, C.: Using Augmented Reality in Software Engineering Education? First insights to a comparative study of 2D and AR UML modeling, Proc. of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sc...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Rodrigues, C. S. C., Werner, C. M. L., and Landau, L.: VisAr3D: An Innovative 3D Visualization of UML Models, Proc. of the 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE- C), May. 2016, pp. 451–460

    2016

  15. [23]

    Schots, M., Rodrigues, C. S. C., Werner, C., and Murta, L.: A Study on the Application of the PREViA Approach in Modeling Education, Proc. of the XXIX International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC2010), Nov. 2010, pp. 96–101

    2010

  16. [24]

    and Maletic, J

    Sharif, B. and Maletic, J. I.: An eye tracking study on the effects of layout in understanding the role of design patterns, Proc. of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’10) , Sep. 2010, pp. 1–10

    2010

  17. [25]

    of the IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference , Apr

    Soler, J., Boada, I., Prados, F., Poch, J., and Fabregat, R.: A web-based e-learning tool for UML class diagrams, Proc. of the IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference , Apr. 2010, pp. 973–979

    2010

  18. [26]

    of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC2012) , Oct

    St ¨orrle, H.: On the impact of layout quality to under- standing UML diagrams: Diagram type and expertise, Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC2012) , Oct. 2012, pp. 49–56

    2012

  19. [27]

    of the IPSJ/SIGSE Software Engineering Symposium (SES2015), Aug

    Tanaka, T., Hashiura, H., Hazeyama, A., and Komiya, S.: Progress Visualization Method by Visualizing Transition of Similarity of Learners’Artifact and Right Answer dur- ing Process of Class Diagram Creation Exercise, Proc. of the IPSJ/SIGSE Software Engineering Symposium (SES2...

    2015

  20. [28]

    E101.D, No

    Tanaka, T., Hashiura, H., Hazeyama, A., Komiya, S., Hirai, Y ., and Kaneko, K.: Learners’ Self Checking and Its Effectiveness in Conceptual Data Modeling Exer- cises, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems , V ol. E101.D, No. 7(2018), pp. 1801–1810

    2018

  21. [29]

    Technologic Arts Co., L.: Introduction to UML Modeling Starting from Zero, SHOEISHA Co.,Ltd., Jan. 2003. (In Japanese)

    2003

  22. [30]

    S., Colmenares, E., and Stringfel- low, C.: A Conceptual Graphs Framework for Teaching UML Model-Based Requirements Acquisition, Proc

    Wei, B., Delugach, H. S., Colmenares, E., and Stringfel- low, C.: A Conceptual Graphs Framework for Teaching UML Model-Based Requirements Acquisition, Proc. of the 2016 IEEE 29th International Conference on Soft- ware Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), Apr. 2016, pp. 71–75

    2016

  23. [31]

    and Stroulia, E.: UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing, Proc

    Xing, Z. and Stroulia, E.: UMLDiff: an algorithm for object-oriented design differencing, Proc. of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Soft- ware Engineering, ASE ’05, New York, NY , USA, Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, Nov. 2005, pp. 54–65. 11 APPEN...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.