MT-CollabUML: Collaborative Software Design using ...

MT-CollabUML: Collaborative Software Design using Multi-touch Tables Liz Burd School of Engineering and Computing Sciences Durham University Durham, United Kingdom [email protected]

Mohammed Basheri School of Engineering and Computing Sciences Durham University Durham, United Kingdom [email protected]

Abstract— The use of multi-touch interfaces for collaborative software design has received significant attention. Multi-touch surfaces can accommodate more than one user synchronously which is particularly useful for collaborative design tasks. In this paper, we explore the potential of using multi-touch technology for Unified Modelling Language (UML) software design by comparing it with desktop-based collaborative software design. Results show that the multi-touch table encouraged students to engage in the process of collaborative software design using UML. Keywords-Multi-touch table; Collaborative work; Desktop-based.

I.

Software

design;

UML;

INTRODUCTION

Collaborative learning has become an increasingly popular educational paradigm and advantages of collaborative learning over individualised learning have been identified [1, 2]. Some of the particular benefits of collaborative problem-solving include: encouraging students to verbalize their thinking; encouraging students to work together, ask questions, explain and justify their opinions; increasing students’ responsibility for their own learning; and encouraging them to elaborate and reflect upon their knowledge [3-5]. Multi-touch interfaces are a promising learning technology that can facilitate collaborative learning. They offer new possibilities for interaction between humans and computers. Researchers from different educational backgrounds are exploring this area and indicate that multi-touch environments can be successful because interaction through touch is both intuitive and natural [6]. These interfaces accommodate more than one user concurrently, which is particularly useful for learning through large, shared display systems like tabletops [7, 8]. Using such systems encourages students to collaborate and create an environment wherein they can discuss their findings and integrate their ideas seamlessly with no technological hindrances. In addition, such systems can enhance students’ interaction skills and promote teamwork. The potential of multi-touch surfaces is to enable co-located collaboration activities, which would allow small groups to work together collaboratively [9]. This potential might be a result of the ability of multi-touch tables to provide equal

Nilufar Baghaei Department of Computing Unitec Institute of Technology Auckland 1142, New Zealand [email protected]

opportunities for collaboration in group work [10]. Many studies have shown the benefits of using multi-touch environments to enhance collaborative work, however, there has been little research to determine the potential of using multi-touch tables to enhance co-located collaboration in software design using Unified Modeling Language (UML). An object-oriented (OO) approach to software development is now commonly used [11, 12] and learning how to develop good quality OO software is a core topic in Computer Science and Software Engineering curricula. OO analysis and design structures exist independently of any programming language and consequently many notational systems have been developed for representing OO models without the need for source code. UML is the predominant notation in use today [1]. OO analysis and design can be a very complex task, as it requires sound knowledge of requirements analysis, design and UML. The text of the problem is often ambiguous and incomplete and students need a lot of experience to be successful in analysis. UML is a complex language and students have many problems mastering it. Furthermore, UML modelling like other design tasks, is not a well-defined process. There is no single best solution for a problem, and often there are several alternative solutions for the same requirements. UML is also suitable for discussion due to its open-ended nature. To this end, in this paper we explore the potential of using multi-touch technology for software design using UML by comparing it with traditional, desktop-based collaborative software design. In Section II, we briefly describe the related research work in multi-touch tables for collaborative work and in collaborative software design using UML. In Section III, we explain a comparative study between desktop-based and multitouch table based for software design using UML. In Section IV, we set forth and discuss the results and findings of the comparative study and how multi-touch tables have enhanced collaboration in software design using UML. Finally, in Section V, we draw conclusions from our research and discuss future work.

II.

RELATED WORK

Several studies have shown the benefits of using multitouch interfaces to enhance collaborative work. For instance, Rick and Rogers [13] built a system called DigiTile to enhance collaborative learning, which helped students design patchwork quilt blocks. In this study, students use multi-touch surfaces to drag pieces into a quilt block and change colors to design mathematical shapes [13]. Further, multi-touch surfaces were used for collaborative information gathering. In this study, users were provided with a tool called WebSurface, which helped them browse the Web collaboratively to gather information from different websites. Using multi-touch surfaces allowed users to search for information, browse multiple pages at the same time, and easily gather the information they found [14]. The level of collaboration in DigiTile [13] and WebSurface [14] is limited and restricted to simple actions performed by users such as putting words in the right context, arranging items over tables, and simple click and drag actions. Morris et al [15] conducted a research study to investigate the effectiveness of utilizing multi-touch tabletops to enhance cooperation during group functions and tasks. The finding was that multi-touch tabletops were particularly useful in enhancing team member awareness. This implies that multi-touch tabletops enhance information sharing among group members. In another study, Harris et al [16] examined the variation in group task performance between single and multi-touch tabletops. Multi-touch tabletops enhance task performance, unlike single-touch tabletops. In [17], multi-touch tabletops increase the awareness and common ground of group members working collaboratively to achieve a particular outcome. Moreover, multi-touch tabletops increase the effectiveness of group tasks and obligations [18]. According to the research studies described above, it is concluded that multi-touch tabletops increase group interaction and therefore increase attainment of group goals. There are also several research efforts to facilitate collaboration among users in software design using UML, such as COLLECT-UML [1, 19], CoLeMo [20], CAMEL [21], and AUTO-COLLEAGUE [22]. Unlike COLLECT-UML and CoLeMo, AUTO-COLLEAGUE does not support collaborative drawing for UML diagrams, but offers a chat system as its main collaboration tool. These systems, however, are designed to support distributed collaborative work, not a face-to-face collaboration style. However, the Software Design Board [23], which is a shared whiteboard tool, this study has produced few outcomes supporting co-located collaborative software design. III.

COMPARATIVE STUDY

Using multi-touch table for collaborative UML diagramming has not been widely researched. To the best of our knowledge, there is no multi-touch table based editor for UML diagramming available. So, a Multi-touch collaborative UML editor named “MT-CollabUML” [24] was developed to encourage face-to-face collaborative software design. In order to keep a same variable in both multi-touch table and desktop-

based conditions, MT-CollabUML application was used in both setting. A. SynergyNet lab The research for this project was conducted in SynergyNet, a special laboratory at Durham University. The SynergyNet lab consists of a set of multi-touch tables, furniture, and software that are specially designed to foster an environment in which people can work collaboratively together (see “Fig. 1”).

Figure 1. SynergyNet lab

B. Participants For the purposes of the research eighteen master program students (14 Females and 4 males) who were studying “Software Engineering for the Internet” were selected. The participants were all familiar with collaboratively designing software using UML and had completed the “Software Engineering for the Internet” module of their course. The participants formed nine groups, each consisted of two people. C. Experiment design A within-subject experiment was conducted to compare how the participants used desktop with how they used multitouch table in terms of collaborative design. Similarities and differences were studied in terms of qualitative behavior in the nine groups of two students, who worked on creating UMLState diagrams. The goal was to identify differences in the level of collaborative design process across experimental conditions. To ensure the validity of our investigation, we decided to compare the use of MT-CollabUML tool in desktop-based and multi-touch table conditions for collaborative UML diagram design. In both conditions, we provided two similar tasks with the same difficulty and complexity. Two separate tasks were implemented, each of which involved the creation of UML-state diagrams through a process of planning, discussion, decision making, drawing and reflection. In order to ensure that the tasks were of the same complexity and required the same level of skills, the course tutor was consulted. We provided two experimental tasks that required the participants to create UML-state diagrams. The course tutor was consulted to ensure that both tasks were of the same level

of complexity. Each task consisted of several activities, including planning, discussion, decision making, drawing diagrams, and reflection. Counterbalanced measures design was conducted in this experiment to help keep the variability low. In this study, the nine groups of students was arranged into group pairs; for every pair of groups, we gave one group a UML design task and asked them to complete it using the MT-CollabUML tool in desktop-based “Fig.2”. The other group was asked to complete the same task using the MT-CollabUML tool on multi-touch table based. Then the groups switched and asked them to complete the second task using desktop and multitouch conditions “Fig. 3”.

E. Data collection All collaborative UML diagramming activities were video recorded for analysis. For the multi-touch and the desktopbased conditions, two cameras were focused on the tables from two directions to ensure all group members captured. F. Data analysis It was clear that the process by which the participants collaborated for software design was different across the two different conditions; multi-touch surface and desktop-based. In order to investigate these differences the Isenberg [25] and Basheri [24] code for recording collaboration styles was adopted. The coding that was applied is addressed in more detail in Table I. These collaboration styles were chosen as they adequately reflected the behavior that was observed during the collaborative software design using UML in paper and multi-touch table based conditions [24]. The experimental task of creating UML-State diagram involved some designing activities such as adding start nodes, state nodes, condition nodes, end nodes, making links and annotations. In the desktop-based condition, participants were sharing a mouse and a keyboard and the LCD screen 20” as shown in “Fig. 2”. In the multi-touch table condition, students were able to use multi digital keyboards and used hand gestures instate of mouse. Therefore, different collaboration styles of UML diagramming were adopted by students in desktop and multi-touch surface.

Figure 2. Desk-based collaborative UML diagramming

A SynergyView tool “Fig. 4”, which was developed especially for SynergyNet project [7] run by Technology Enhanced Learning group in Durham University, was used for analyzing the recoded video in order to coding the collaboration styles adapted during the designing process. We calculated each collaboration style percentage for each group according to the total task time spent in both conditions. The DISC (discussion), VE (view engaged), and SW (shared work) were considered as a “close collaboration” as the participants collaborated by discussing and working together; some only watched, but they at least engaged in discussion. However, the WI (working individually) and D (disengaged) styles were considered as a “loose collaboration”, because one of the participants either worked individually or were completely disengaged during the task [24].

Figure 3. Multi-touch table based collaborative UML diagramming

D. Procedure Before the experiment began, all the students underwent basic training in the use of the MT-CollabUML tool in the multi-touch table and desktop-based. The experiment took place in Durham University’s SynergyNet lab “Fig. 1”, and a within-subject study design was used for both the desktopbased and the multi-touch surface. The groups were given as much time as they need to complete the tasks.

Figure 4. SynergyView application for videos annotation along a timeline

TABLE I. COLLABORATION STYLE CODING SCHEME [24] Collab. Description Example Styles

DISC

Active discussion about the task.

VE

One person is actively working; the other watches and engages in conversation and comments on the observed activities but is not interacting with the table or desktop.

so, the result showed that the disengagement time was 3.28% in the multi-touch table condition [24]. As the participants were working in one desktop and using a single mouse and a keyboard, none of them were able work individually (WI). Furthermore, the MT-CollabUML in multi-touch based does not facilitate working individually (WI) and the work space is only enough for one diagram. Therefore, there was no result of WI in the multi-touch table condition. As a result, in both conditions, there was no a loose collaboration during the design process. TABLE II. PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT IN EACH COLLABORATION STYLE IN MULTI-TOUCH AND DESKTOP-BASED CONDITIONS Collaboration Style Multi-touch Desktopbased based 17.76% 25.72% DISC (discussing) Close Collaboration

SW

WI

D

All persons share the work to solve the same specific problem.

Working individually; each person is creating his/her diagram.

Disengaged. One person is actively working; the other is watching passively or is fully disengaged from the task.

IV.

STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This study explores the benefits of using a multi-touch table as a tool to encourage students to work collaboratively in software design using UML. In the case of multi-touch tables, students showed better and closer collaboration, and the use of multi-touch enhanced the collaborative software design. Qualitative analysis of the level of collaboration was performed as mentioned in Section III. The multi-touch finding showed that the percentages of task time that the participants spent in each collaboration style were: DISC (discussing), 17.7%; VE (view engaged), 31.96%; SW (shared work), 50.32%; WI (working individually), and D (disengaging time), 0.00%. However, in the desktop-based condition, the findings were: DISC, 25.72%; VE, 61.31%; SW, 12.98%; WI and D, 0.00%. These findings are summarized in Table II. There are two different levels of collaboration, namely close collaboration and loose collaboration, as explained in Section III. In both multi-touch table and desktop-based condition, there were not records of disengagement. The reason behind that is the group size. As mentioned, each group was consist two students, therefore, this reduced the disengagement time. However, in [24], there were three students in each group

Loose Collaboration

VE (view engaged)

31.92%

61.31%

SW (shared work)

50.32%

12.97%

WI (working individually), D (disengaging)

0.00%

0.00%

In the close collaboration styles, the participants engaged in active sharing of information and discussion regarding the task. They worked together as a team solving the same problems and pursued similar questions. Shared Work (SW) collaboration style is considered as high collaboration practice in which students discussing and shared work as the same time. In the multi-touch based condition, the participants spent more time in SW (shared work) by working together actively on the same task using more than one digital keyboard as shown in “Fig. 3”. Consequently, this feature in the MT-CollabUML multi-touch based tool encouraged better collaboration in term of sharing the design process. In some cases, the team member agreed what will be the next step and then working together in the same diagram but in different nodes. In desktop based condition, sometimes participants shared the keyboard and the mouse; one used the keyboard and the other used the mouse. This collaboration style is known as Shared Work (SW). It was difficult for the participants to share the input devices and workspace at the same time. These difficulties in desktop-based setting resulted in the lowest time spent in Shared Work (SW) which is considered to be the closest collaboration style. On the contrary, in the multi-touch based participants were able to share the workspace easily. Furthermore, they were able to use more than one digital keyboard at the same time and they used hand gestures instead of a single mouse. Hence, these features allowed participants to share the design work and they spent a significant time in the multi-touch based preforming Shared Work (SW) collaboration style. In both multi-touch and desktop-based tasks, participants spent a considerable amount of time in discussion prior to the actual design process DISC (discussing) style. Most of this discussion was conducted at early in the design process in order to agree on an initial design before committing to the design. During the experiment, sometimes the participants stopped working and engaged in discussion (DISC) to explore

different ways of solving the problem. However, in the desktop-based, they stopped more to agree for the next step. In the desktop-based more than half time spent in VE (view engaged) collaboration style where one of the participants engaged in either watching or discussing. In the desktop-based condition one person dominated the design process such as actively working on the diagram design while the other person was just watching or talking. As a result, 61.31% of the total time task was actively spent in VE (view engaged) collaboration style. However, multi-touch table decreased VE time and increased SW more than the desktop-based condition. Therefore, the overall collaboration pattern results indicated that the multi-touch based condition was better than the desktop-based condition in terms of encouraging active collaboration. V.

CONCULSION

In this study, we investigated the differences in collaborative work in UML design among groups of students working in desktop and multi-touch table based conditions to determine the potential of the multi-touch table. Results indicated the benefit of using the multi-touch MT-CollabUML tool in making a noticeable enhancement of the collaborative software design using UML. In this study, the differences of collaboration styles of using MT-CollabUML tool for software design using UML among groups of participants working in desktop and multi-touch table based conditions were investigated. Results indicated using MT-CollabUML tool in multi-touch table based was made a noticeable enhancement of the collaborative software design using UML. The multi-touch MT-CollabUML tool allowed practicing better collaboration of software design compared with using a single computer for collaborative UML diagramming. Indeed, the multi-touch MT-CollabUML tool has played an important role in increasing the level of collaboration among students for the purpose of collaborative software design. More research should be done to explore of using the multi-touch tables for professional software design. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors acknowledge that the hardware for this research has been provided by the Engineering and Physics Research Council (EPSRC) under grand research number RES139-25-0400. REFERENCES [1] N. Baghaei, A. Mitrovic, and W. Irwin, "Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams," International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 2, pp. 159-190, 2007. [2] M. d. l. A. Constantino-González, D. D. Suthers, and J. I. Icaza, "Coaching Web-based Collaborative Learning based on Problem Solution Differences and Participation," Int. Artificial Intelligence in Educatio, vol. 13, pp. 263-299, 2003. [3] N. Rummel and H. Spada, "Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computermediated settings," Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 201-241, 2005.

[4] A. Soller, "Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system," International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), vol. 12, pp. 40-62, 2001. [5] N. M. Webb, J. D. Troper, and R. Fall, "Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups," Journal of educational psychology, vol. 87, pp. 406-423, 1995. [6] W. Westerman, J. Elias, and A. Hedge, "Multi-touch: A new tactile 2-d gesture interface for human-computer interaction," in In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 2001, pp. 632636. [7] S. Higgins, E. Mercier, L. Burd, and A. Joyce-Gibbons, "Multi-touch tables and collaborative learning," British Journal of Educational Technology, 2011. [8] J. Han, "Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection," in Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Seattle, WA, USA 2005, pp. 115-118. [9] J. Rick, A. Harris, P. Marshall, R. Fleck, N. Yuill, and Y. Rogers, "Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: an analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions," in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children Como, Italy: ACM, 2009. [10] Y. Rogers, Y. Lim, W. R. Hazlewood, and P. Marshall, "Equal Opportunities: Do Shareable Interfaces Promote More Group Participation Than Single User Displays?," Human Computer Interaction, vol. 24, pp. 79-116, 2009. [11] G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The (Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series): Addison-Wesley Professional, 2005. [12] I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, 7th ed ed.: Pearson/AddisonWesley, 2004. [13] J. Rick and Y. Rogers, "From DigiQuilt to DigiTile: Adapting educational technology to a multi-touch table," in In Proceedings of Tabletop, Los Alamitos, CA, 2008, pp. 79-86. [14] P. Tuddenham, I. Davies, and P. Robinson, "WebSurface: an Interface for Co-located Collaborative Information Gathering," in Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM, 2009. [15] M. R. Morris, J. Lombardo, and D. Wigdor, "WeSearch: supporting collaborative search and sensemaking on a tabletop display," in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work Savannah, Georgia, USA: ACM, 2010, pp. 401410. [16] A. Harris, J. Rick, V. Bonnett, N. Yuill, R. Fleck, P. Marshall, and Y. Rogers, "Around the table: are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children's collaborative interactions?," in Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning. vol. 1 Rhodes, Greece: International Society of the Learning Sciences, 2009, pp. 335-344. [17] P. Isenberg and D. Fisher, "Collaborative Brushing and Linking for Colocated Visual Analytics of Document Collections," Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 28, pp. 1031-1038, 2009. [18] K. C. Dohse, T. Dohse, J. D. Still, and D. J. Parkhurst, "Enhancing Multi-user Interaction with Multi-touch Tabletop Displays Using Hand Tracking," in Advances in Computer-Human Interaction, 2008 First International Conference on, 2008, pp. 297-302. [19] N. Baghaei and A. Mitrovic, "A constraint-based collaborative environment for learning UML class diagrams," in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 4053/2006, M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, and T.-W. Chan, Eds.: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 176186. [20] W. Chen, R. Pedersen, and O. Pettersen, "CoLeMo: A Collaborative Learning Environment for UML Modelling," Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 14, p. 17, 2006. [21] M. Cataldo, C. Shelton, C. Yongjoon, H. Yun-Yin, V. Ramesh, D. Saini, and W. Liang-Yun, "CAMEL: A Tool for Collaborative Distributed Software Design," in Global Software Engineering, 2009. ICGSE 2009. Fourth IEEE International Conference on, 2009, pp. 83-92. [22] K. Tourtoglou, M. Virvou, G. Tsihrintzis, R. Howlett, and L. Jain, "User Stereotypes Concerning Cognitive, Personality and Performance

Issues in a Collaborative Learning Environment for UML," in Studies in Computational Intelligence. vol. 142/2008, G. A. Tsihrintzis, M. Virvou, R. J. Howlett, and L. C. Jain, Eds.: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 385-394. [23] J. Wu, T. Graham, R. Bastide, P. Palanque, and J. Roth, "The Software Design Board: A Tool Supporting Workstyle Transitions in Collaborative Software," in Engineering Human Computer Interaction and Interactive Systems. vol. 3425, R. Bastide, Ed.: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2005, pp. 143-147. [24] M. Basheri and L. Burd, "Exploring the Significance of Multi-touch Tables in Enhancing Collaborative Software Design using UML," in Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, Washington, USA (in press), 2012. [25] P. Isenberg, D. Fisher, M. R. Morris, K. Inkpen, and M. Czerwinski, "An exploratory study of co-located collaborative visual analytics around a tabletop display," in Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), 2010 IEEE Symposium on, 2010, pp. 179-186.

Mohammed Basheri, Ph.D candidate in School of Engineering and Computing Sciences at Durham University, England, UK Liz Burd, Professor in School of Engineering and Computing Sciences at Durham University, England, UK Nilufar Baghaei , Doctor, Department of Computing at Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland , New Zealand