CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Model-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesTeaching and Learning Programming

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Systematic Review of UML Diagramming Software Tools for Higher Education Software Engineering Courses

Open access
Lu, Yuting, Alexandru, Cristina Adriana·2023·The United Kingdom and Ireland Computing Education Research (UKICER) conference
DOI 10.1145/3610969.3611123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Unified Modelling Language (UML) is a set of graphical notations underpinned by a single meta-model that aid in the description and design of software systems. Learning to draw UML diagrams is an important objective of higher education (HE) software engineering (SE) courses. To this end, UML diagramming software tools can facilitate the application of the UML notation in drawing complex diagrams collaboratively between students. Numerous UML diagramming tools are available on the market nowadays, which makes it difficult for academics and students to choose the best tool for their needs, and no thorough evaluation of such tools for education is available. This project conducted a systematic review of UML diagramming tools that are freely available or available for a trial, from the point of view of meeting desirable diagramming and collaboration features for use in HE SE courses. This paper presents the methodology and results of this systematic review, before concluding on the best tools overall and for different features, and proposing a set of guidelines for the design of better UML diagramming tools for HE SE courses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3610969.3611123

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 13 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. 2023. Archi. https://www.archimatetool.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Archi. https://www.archimatetool.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  2. 2023. Cacoo. https://nulab.com/cacoo/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Cacoo. https://nulab.com/cacoo/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  3. 2023. ConceptDraw DIAGRAM. https://www.conceptdraw.com/products/drawing-tool Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. ConceptDraw DIAGRAM. https://www.conceptdraw.com/products/drawing-tool Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  4. 2023. Creately. https://creately.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Creately. https://creately.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  5. 2023. Draw.io. https://app.diagrams.net/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Draw.io. https://app.diagrams.net/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  6. 2023. EDraw. https://www.edrawsoft.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. EDraw. https://www.edrawsoft.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  7. 2023. Gaphor. https://gaphor.org/en/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Gaphor. https://gaphor.org/en/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  8. 2023. GenMyModel. https://www.genmymodel.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. GenMyModel. https://www.genmymodel.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  9. 2023. Git Mind . https://gitmind.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Git Mind. https://gitmind.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  10. 2023. Gliffy. https://www.gliffy.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Gliffy. https://www.gliffy.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  11. 2023. Google. https://www.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Google. https://www.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  12. 2023. Google Scholar . https://scholar.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  13. 2023. Lucidchart. https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Lucidchart. https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  14. 2023. MagicDraw. https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/no-magic/magicdraw/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. MagicDraw. https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia/products/no-magic/magicdraw/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  15. 2023. Microsoft Visio . https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/visio/flowchart-software Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Microsoft Visio. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/microsoft-365/visio/flowchart-software Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  16. 2023. Moqups. https://moqups.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Moqups. https://moqups.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  17. 2023. OmniGraffle. https://www.omnigroup.com/omnigraffle Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. OmniGraffle. https://www.omnigroup.com/omnigraffle Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  18. 2023. Sketchboard. https://sketchboard.io/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Sketchboard. https://sketchboard.io/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  19. 2023. SmartDraw. https://www.smartdraw.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. SmartDraw. https://www.smartdraw.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  20. 2023. UMLetino. https://www.umletino.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. UMLetino. https://www.umletino.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  21. 2023. Visual Paradigm . https://www.visual-paradigm.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. Visual Paradigm. https://www.visual-paradigm.com/ Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  22. 2023. yEd. https://www.yworks.com/products/yed Accessed on 23 May 2023 . 2023. yEd. https://www.yworks.com/products/yed Accessed on 23 May 2023.
  23. Anna E Bobkowska and Krzysztof Reszke . 2005. Usability of UML Modeling Tools.Software engineering: evolution and emerging technologies 5 ( 2005 ). Anna E Bobkowska and Krzysztof Reszke. 2005. Usability of UML Modeling Tools.Software engineering: evolution and emerging technologies 5 (2005).
  24. 10.1007/s43545-020-00053-x · DOI
  25. 10.1080/08993408.2018.1462000 · DOI
  26. 10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0025 · DOI
  27. Holger Eichelberger , Yilmaz Eldogan , and Klaus Schmid . 2009. A comprehensive survey of UML compliance in current modelling tools. Software Engineering 2009 ( 2009 ). Holger Eichelberger, Yilmaz Eldogan, and Klaus Schmid. 2009. A comprehensive survey of UML compliance in current modelling tools. Software Engineering 2009 (2009).
  28. Gregor Engels , Jan Hendrik Hausmann , Marc Lohmann , and Stefan Sauer . 2006 . Teaching UML is teaching software engineering is teaching abstraction. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium , Educators Symposium Montego Bay , Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 306–319. Gregor Engels, Jan Hendrik Hausmann, Marc Lohmann, and Stefan Sauer. 2006. Teaching UML is teaching software engineering is teaching abstraction. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium, Educators Symposium Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 306–319.
  29. 10.1109/MODELS.2015.7338260 · DOI
  30. Heena and Ranjna Garg. 2011. A comparative study of UML tools.. In ACAI. 1–4. Heena and Ranjna Garg. 2011. A comparative study of UML tools.. In ACAI. 1–4. · DOI
  31. Lena Khaled . 2009. A comparison between UML tools. In 2009 second international conference on environmental and computer science . IEEE , 111–114. Lena Khaled. 2009. A comparison between UML tools. In 2009 second international conference on environmental and computer science. IEEE, 111–114.
  32. Ann L Kieser and Fay Ortiz Golden . 2009 . Using online office applications: Collaboration tools for learning . Distance Learning 6 , 1 (2009), 41 . Ann L Kieser and Fay Ortiz Golden. 2009. Using online office applications: Collaboration tools for learning. Distance Learning 6, 1 (2009), 41.
  33. Hatice Koç , Ali Mert Erdoğan , Yousef Barjakly , and Serhat Peker . 2021 . UML diagrams in software engineering research: a systematic literature review . In Proceedings, Vol. 74 . MDPI, 13. Hatice Koç, Ali Mert Erdoğan, Yousef Barjakly, and Serhat Peker. 2021. UML diagrams in software engineering research: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings, Vol. 74. MDPI, 13.
  34. Ludwik Kuzniarz and Miroslaw Staron . 2006 . Best practices for teaching UML based software development. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium , Educators Symposium Montego Bay , Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 320–332. Ludwik Kuzniarz and Miroslaw Staron. 2006. Best practices for teaching UML based software development. In Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference: MoDELS 2005 International Workshops Doctoral Symposium, Educators Symposium Montego Bay, Jamaica, October 2-7, 2005 Revised Selected Papers 8. Springer, 320–332.
  35. Cyprien Lomas , Michael Burke , and Carie L Page . 2008. Collaboration tools. Educause learning initiative 2, 11 ( 2008 ). Cyprien Lomas, Michael Burke, and Carie L Page. 2008. Collaboration tools. Educause learning initiative 2, 11 (2008).
  36. Elina Michaelidou . 2019. Review of Web-Based Audience Response Systems Used in Higher Education. Master’s thesis . School of Informatics University of Edinburgh . Elina Michaelidou. 2019. Review of Web-Based Audience Response Systems Used in Higher Education. Master’s thesis. School of Informatics University of Edinburgh.
  37. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1109/MS.2013.12 · DOI
  39. 10.5220/0005826006770686 · DOI
  40. Mert Ozkaya . 2018. Do the informal & formal software modeling notations satisfy practitioners for software architecture modeling?Information and Software Technology 95 ( 2018 ), 15–33. Mert Ozkaya. 2018. Do the informal & formal software modeling notations satisfy practitioners for software architecture modeling?Information and Software Technology 95 (2018), 15–33.
  41. 10.1049/iet-sen.2018.5409 · DOI
  42. Matthew J Page , Joanne E McKenzie , Patrick M Bossuyt , Isabelle Boutron , Tammy C Hoffmann , Cynthia D Mulrow , Larissa Shamseer , Jennifer M Tetzlaff , Elie A Akl , Sue E Brennan , 2021 . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery 88 (2021), 105906. Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery 88 (2021), 105906.
  43. Amy T Peterson , Patrick N Beymer , and Ralph T Putnam . 2018. Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect.Online Learning 22, 4 ( 2018 ), 7–25. Amy T Peterson, Patrick N Beymer, and Ralph T Putnam. 2018. Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect.Online Learning 22, 4 (2018), 7–25.
  44. T Rani and S Garg . 2013 . Comparison of different UML tool: Tool approach . International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science 2 , 6 (2013), 1900 – 1908 . T Rani and S Garg. 2013. Comparison of different UML tool: Tool approach. International Journal Of Engineering And Computer Science 2, 6 (2013), 1900–1908.
  45. 10.1007/978-3-319-11653-2_10 · DOI
  46. 10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125110 · DOI
  47. 10.1007/978-3-319-21151-0_3 · DOI
  48. B Selic , C Bock , S Cook , P Rivett , T Rutt , E Seidewitz , and D Tolbert . 2015. OMG Unified Modeling Language (Version 2.5) . Object Management Group , MA, USA ( 2015 ). B Selic, C Bock, S Cook, P Rivett, T Rutt, E Seidewitz, and D Tolbert. 2015. OMG Unified Modeling Language (Version 2.5). Object Management Group, MA, USA (2015).
  49. 10.5555/1060081.1060090 · DOI
  50. Suriya Sundaramoorthy . 2022. UML Diagramming: A Case Study Approach . CRC Press . Suriya Sundaramoorthy. 2022. UML Diagramming: A Case Study Approach. CRC Press.
  51. 10.1007/978-981-13-1799-6_7 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Lu, Y., & Alexandru, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
ORCID
Venue
The United Kingdom and Ireland Computing Education Research (UKICER) conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-09-07
Pages
1-7
DOI
10.1145/3610969.3611123
OpenAlex
W4387025691
Cited by
4
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research (UKICER) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Model-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
Unified Modelling Language, software engineering education, higher education, free and open source software, tool evaluation, software design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review of UML Diagramming Software Tools for Higher Education Software Engineering Courses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3610969.3611123
The paper
Lu, Y., & Alexandru, C. A. (2023). Systematic Review of UML Diagramming Software Tools for Higher Education Software Engineering Courses. The United Kingdom and Ireland Computing Education Research (UKICER) conference. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610969.3611123