Large Language Models (LLM) have rapidly affirmed in the latest years as a means to support or substitute human actors in a variety of tasks. LLM agents can generate valid software models, because of their inherent ability in evaluating textual requirements provided to them in the form of prompts. The goal of this work is to evaluate the capability of LLM agents to correctly generate UML class diagrams in activities of Requirements Modeling in the field of Software Engineering. Our aim is to evaluate LLMs in an educational setting, i.e., understanding how valuable are the results of LLMs when compared to results made by human actors, and how valuable can LLM be to generate sample solutions to provide to students. For that purpose, we collected 20 exercises from a diverse set of web sources and compared the models generated by a human and an LLM solver in terms of syntactic, semantic, pragmatic correctness, and distance from a provided reference solution. Our results show that the solutions generated by an LLM solver typically present a significantly higher number of errors in terms of semantic quality and textual difference against the provided reference solution, while no significant difference is found in syntactic and pragmatic quality. We can therefore conclude that, with a limited amount of errors mostly related to the textual content of the solution, UML diagrams generated by LLM agents have the same level of understandability as those generated by humans, and exhibit the same frequency in violating rules of UML Class Diagrams.

Software testing is a crucial phase in software development, enabling the detection of issues and defects that may arise during the development process. Addressing these issues enhances software applications' quality, reliability, user experience, and performance. Graphical User Interface (GUI) testing, one such technique, involves mimicking a regular user's interactions with an application to identify defects. However, GUI testing is often underutilized due to its perceived repetitiveness, error-proneness, and lack of immediate feedback on test quality. In recent years, gamification---incorporating game elements in non-game contexts to boost interest, motivation, and engagement---has gained traction in various fields, including software engineering and education. This paper presents GIPGUT: a prototype of a gamification plugin for IntelliJ IDEA, an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) that supports scripted GUI testing. The plugin enhances testers' engagement with typically monotonous and tedious tasks through achievements, rewards, and profile customization. A preliminary prototype evaluation was conducted with a small group of users to assess its usability and the impact of gamification on the GUI testing process. The results indicate high usability and positive reception of the gamification elements. However, due to the limited sample size of participants, further research is necessary to understand the plugin's effectiveness fully.

Business Process Modeling is a skill that is becoming sought after for computer engineers, with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) being one example of the tools used in modeling activities. Students of the Master of Computer Engineering course at Politecnico di Torino learn about BPMN in dedicated courses but often underperform on BPMN-related exercises due to difficulties understanding how to model processes. In recent years, there has been a surge of studies that employ gamification (using game elements in non-recreative contexts to obtain benefits) as a tool in Computer Engineering education to increase students’ engagement with the learning process. This study aims to use the principles of gamification to design a supplementary learning tool for the teaching of information systems technology. In particular, to improve student understanding and use of BPMN diagrams. This study also analyzes the usability and motivation of the participants in using different game elements in increasing student motivation and performance. As part of the study, a prototype web application was developed, which implemented three different designs, each incorporating different game elements relating to either progress, competition, or rewards. An evaluation was then conducted on the prototype to evaluate the performance of the practitioners in performing BPMN modeling tasks with the gamified tool, the usability of the proposed mechanics and the enjoyment of the individual game mechanics that were implemented. With the usage of the gamified tool, the users of the experimental sample were able to complete BPMN modeling tasks with performances compatible with estimates made through expert judgement (i.e., gamification had no negative effect on performance), and were motivated to check the correctness of their models many times during the task execution. The system was evaluated as highly usable (85.8 System Usability Score); the most enjoyed game elements were rewards, levels, progress bars and aesthetics.

Gamification, the practice of using game elements in non-recreational contexts to increase user participation and interest, has been applied more and more throughout the years in software engineering. Business process modeling is a skill considered fundamental for software engineers, with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) being one of the most commonly used notations for this discipline. BPMN modeling is present in different curricula in specific Master’s Degree courses related to software engineering but is usually seen by students as an unappealing or uninteresting activity. Gamification could potentially solve this issue, though there have been no relevant attempts in research yet. This paper aims at collecting preliminary insights on how gamification affects students’ motivation in performing BPMN modeling tasks and—as a consequence—their productivity and learning outcomes. A web application for modeling BPMN diagrams augmented with gamification mechanics such as feedback, rewards, progression, and penalization has been compared with a non-gamified version that provides more limited feedback in an experiment involving 200 students. The diagrams modeled by the students are collected and analyzed after the experiment. Students’ opinions are gathered using a post-experiment questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed that gamification leads students to check more often for their solutions’ correctness, increasing the semantic correctness of their diagrams, thus showing that it can improve students’ modeling skills. The results, however, are mixed and require additional experiments in the future to fine-tune the tool for actual classroom use.