Advertisement

Ontology-Based Analysis and Design of Educational Games for Software Refactoring

  • Thorsten HaendlerEmail author
  • Gustaf Neumann
Conference paper
  • 12 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1220)

Abstract

Despite being regarded as necessary to ensure a system’s maintainability and extensibility, software refactoring is often neglected in practice due to difficulties and risks perceived by software developers. Still, refactoring received little attention by software engineering education and training so far. Educational games are a popular means for enhancing practical competences as well as increasing motivation of learners. For instructors, however, it is challenging to develop and apply games in order to address certain learning objectives, which is important to integrate the games into existing or planned training paths. In this article, we propose an ontology that aims to support the analysis and design of games for teaching and training software refactoring. In particular, we create a unifying domain ontology bridging core concepts from three related fields, i.e. game design (a), software refactoring (b), and competence management (c). The resulting ontology is represented as a UML class diagram that reflects concepts and concept relations important for educational refactoring games. We describe ontology-based design options and demonstrate the use of the ontology by analyzing existing games for software refactoring. In addition, we also present an exemplary process for developing novel games based on the ontology and illustrate its applicability by designing a non-digital card game .

Keywords

Software refactoring Game design Game analysis Gamification Serious games Domain ontology Software engineering education and training 

References

  1. 1.
    Alhammad, M.M., Moreno, A.M.: Gamification in software engineering education: a systematic mapping. J. Syst. Softw. 141, 131–150 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves, N.S., Mendes, T.S., de Mendonça, M.G., Spínola, R.O., Shull, F., Seaman, C.: Identification and management of technical debt: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 70, 100–121 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avgeriou, P., Kruchten, P., Ozkaya, I., Seaman, C.: Managing technical debt in software engineering (dagstuhl seminar 16162). In: Dagstuhl Reports, vol. 6. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2016).  https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.6.4.110
  4. 4.
    Baars, S., Meester, S.: CodeArena: Inspecting and improving code quality metrics using minecraft. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technical Debt (Tool Demos). IEEE (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TechDebt.2019.00023
  5. 5.
    Bartle, R.: Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit muds. J. MUD Res. 1(1), 19 (1996). http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
  6. 6.
    Bavota, G., Qusef, A., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., Binkley, D.: An empirical analysis of the distribution of unit test smells and their impact on software maintenance. In: Proceedings of ICSM 2012, pp. 56–65. IEEE (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSM.2012.6405253
  7. 7.
    Bloom, B.S., et al.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Cognitive Domain, vol. 1, pp. 20–24. McKay, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Britto, R., Usman, M.: Bloom’s taxonomy in software engineering education: a systematic mapping study. In: 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344084
  9. 9.
    Campbell, G., Papapetrou, P.P.: SonarQube in Action. Manning Publications Co. (2013). https://www.sonarqube.org/. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  10. 10.
    CoderGears: JArchitect (2018). http://www.jarchitect.com/. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  11. 11.
    Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., Boyle, J.M.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 59(2), 661–686 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elezi, L., Sali, S., Demeyer, S., Murgia, A., Pérez, J.: A game of refactoring: studying the impact of gamification in software refactoring. In: Proceedings of the Scientific Workshops of XP 2016, p. 23. ACM (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2962695.2962718
  13. 13.
    Femmer, H., Fernández, D.M., Wagner, S., Eder, S.: Rapid quality assurance with requirements smells. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 190–213 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.02.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fontana, F.A., Braione, P., Zanoni, M.: Automatic detection of bad smells in code: an experimental assessment. J. Object Technol. 11(2), 5:1–5:38 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.5381/jot.2012.11.2.a5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., Roberts, D.: Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley Professional (1999). http://martinfowler.com/books/refactoring.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  16. 16.
    García, F., Pedreira, O., Piattini, M., Cerdeira-Pena, A., Penabad, M.: A framework for gamification in software engineering. J. Syst. Softw. 132, 21–40 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.06.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guizzardi, G., Herre, H., Wagner, G.: On the general ontological foundations of conceptual modeling. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S.T., Kambayashi, Y. (eds.) ER 2002. LNCS, vol. 2503, pp. 65–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45816-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haendler, T.: A card game for learning software-refactoring principles. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Gamification and Games for Learning (GamiLearn@CHIPLAY) (2019)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haendler, T., Frysak, J.: Deconstructing the refactoring process from a problem-solving and decision-making perspective. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT), pp. 363–372. SciTePress (2018).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0006915903970406
  20. 20.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G.: A framework for the assessment and training of software refactoring competences. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems (KMIS). SciTePress (2019)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G.: Ontology-based analysis of game designs for software refactoring. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU), vol. 1, pp. 24–35. SciTePress (2019).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0007878300240035
  22. 22.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G.: Serious games for software refactoring. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering and Software Management, pp. 181–182. GI, Springer (2019).  https://doi.org/10.18420/se2019-58
  23. 23.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G.: Serious refactoring games. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 7691–7700 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.927
  24. 24.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G., Smirnov, F.: An interactive tutoring system for training software refactoring. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU), vol. 2, pp. 177–188. SciTePress (2019).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0007801101770188
  25. 25.
    Haendler, T., Neumann, G., Smirnov, F.: RefacTutor: an interactive tutoring system for software refactoring. In: International Conference on Computers Supported Education, Revised Selected Papers of CSEDU 2019. Springer (2019)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work?-A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: Proceedings of 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3025–3034. IEEE (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
  27. 27.
    Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., Zubek, R.: MDA: a formal approach to game design and game research. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, vol. 4, pp. 1–5. AAAI Press, San Jose (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huotari, K., Hamari, J.: Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, pp. 17–22. ACM (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137
  29. 29.
    Kan, S.H.: Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khandelwal, S., Sripada, S.K., Reddy, Y.R.: Impact of gamification on code review process: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the 10th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference, pp. 122–126. ACM (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3021460.3021474
  31. 31.
    Kitchenham, B.A., et al.: Towards an ontology of software maintenance. J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract. 11(6), 365–389 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-908X(199911/12)11:6<365::AID-SMR200>3.0.CO;2-W
  32. 32.
    Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theor. Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  33. 33.
    Kruchten, P., Nord, R.L., Ozkaya, I.: Technical debt: from metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Softw. 29(6), 18–21 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Landers, R.N.: Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simul. Gaming 45(6), 752–768 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Masapanta-Carrión, S., Velázquez-Iturbide, J.Á.: A systematic review of the use of Bloom’s taxonomy in computer science education. In: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 441–446. ACM (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159491
  36. 36.
    Miljanovic, M.A., Bradbury, J.S.: A review of serious games for programming. In: Göbel, S., et al. (eds.) JCSG 2018. LNCS, vol. 11243, pp. 204–216. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02762-9_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Misbhauddin, M., Alshayeb, M.: UML model refactoring: a systematic literature review. Empirical Softw. Eng. 20(1), 206–251 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moha, N., Gueheneuc, Y.G., Duchien, L., Le Meur, A.F.: DECOR: a method for the specification and detection of code and design smells. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 36(1), 20–36 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.50CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., Hamari, J.: How to design gamification? A method for engineering gamified software. Inf. Softw. Technol. 95, 219–237 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murphy-Hill, E., Parnin, C., Black, A.P.: How we refactor, and how we know it. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 38(1), 5–18 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2011.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L., et al.: Ontology development 101: a guide to creating your first ontology (2001). https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  42. 42.
    Object Management Group: Unified Modeling Language (UML), Superstructure, Version 2.5.1, June 2017. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1. Accessed 7 Aug 2019
  43. 43.
    Opdyke, W.F.: Refactoring Object-oriented Frameworks. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign (1992). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=169783
  44. 44.
    Paquette, G.: An ontology and a software framework for competency modeling and management. Educ. Technol. Soc. 10(3), 1–21 (2007). https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.3.1?seq=1Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parnas, D.L.: Software aging. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 279–287. IEEE (1994), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=257734.257788
  46. 46.
    Paulheim, H.: Knowledge graph refinement: a survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semant. Web 8(3), 489–508 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-160218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pedreira, O., García, F., Brisaboa, N., Piattini, M.: Gamification in software engineering-a systematic mapping. Inf. Softw. Technol. 57, 157–168 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Prensky, M.: Digital game-based learning. Comput. Entertainment (CIE) 1(1), 21–21 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1145/950566.950596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raab, F.: CodeSmellExplorer: Tangible exploration of code smells and refactorings. In: 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 261–262. IEEE (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2012.6344544
  50. 50.
    Rolim, R., et al.: Learning syntactic program transformations from examples. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 404–415. IEEE Press (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2017.44
  51. 51.
    Sandalski, M., Stoyanova-Doycheva, A., Popchev, I., Stoyanov, S.: Development of a refactoring learning environment. Cybern. Inf. Technol. (CIT) 11(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Suryanarayana, G., Samarthyam, G., Sharma, T.: Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt. Morgan Kaufmann (2014). https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2755629
  53. 53.
    Tempero, E., Gorschek, T., Angelis, L.: Barriers to refactoring. Commun. ACM 60(10), 54–61 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3131873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tsantalis, N., Chaikalis, T., Chatzigeorgiou, A.: JDeodorant: Identification and removal of type-checking bad smells. In: Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008), pp. 329–331. IEEE (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/CSMR.2008.4493342
  55. 55.
    ZEN PROGRAM: NDepend (2018), http://www.ndepend.com/. Accessed 7 Aug 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Systems and New MediaVienna University of Economics and Business (WU Vienna)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations