How Prior Knowledge Affects User's Understanding of System Requirements?
Requirements are critical to system validation as they guide all subsequent stages of systems development. Inadequately specified requirements generate systems that require major revisions or cause system failure entirely. Use Cases have become the main vehicle for requirements capture in many current Object Oriented (OO) development methodologies, and a means for developers to communicate with different stakeholders. In this paper we present the results of a laboratory experiment that explored whether different types of use case format are equally effective in facilitating high knowledge user-s understanding. Results showed that the provision of diagrams along with the textual use case descriptions significantly improved user comprehension of system requirements in both familiar and unfamiliar application domains. However, when comparing groups that received models of textual description accompanied with diagrams of different level of details (simple and detailed) we found no significant difference in performance.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1331437Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 962
 C. Kobryn, "UML 2001: A Standardization Odyssey," Comm. of ACM, vol. 42, no.10, 1999, pp. 29-37.
 G. Booch G, J. Rumbaugh J, I. Jacobson, "The unified modeling language user guide," Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1999.
 D. Rosenberg, K. Scott "Use case driven object modeling with UML: a practical approach," Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1999.
 D. Kulak D, E. Guiney, "Use casesÔÇörequirements in context," Addison Wesley, Reading, 2000.
 L. A. Maciaszek, "Requirements analysis and system design, Developing information systems with UML,". Addison- Wesley, Reading, 2001.
 J. Krogstie, "Using a semiotic framework to evaluate UML for the development of models of high quality", In Siau K, Haplin T (eds) Unified modeling language: systems analysis, design, and development issues. Idea Group Puplishing, Hershey, 2000.
 B. Dobing, J. Parsons "Understanding the role of use cases in UML: a review and research agenda". J. Database Manag., vol. 11,no. 4, 2000, pp. 28-36.
 Y. Wand, R. Weber "Research Commentary: Information systems and Conceptual Modeling- a Research Agenda" Info. Sys. Res. , vol. 13, no. 4, 2002, pp. 363-376.
 V. Gyselinck, H. Tardieu, "The role of illustrations in text comprehension: What, when, for whom, and why?" In van Ostendorp, H., and Goldman, S. R. (eds.) Erlbaum, Mahwah,NJ. 1999
 W. Schnotz, , T. Rasch, T. "Enabling, Facilitating, and inhibiting effects animation in multimedia learning: why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning," Educ. Tech. Res. and Devel., vol. 53, no. 3, 2005, pp. 47-58.
 W. Schnotz, C. Kurschner, "External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction." Instr. Scie., vol. 36, no. 3, 2008, pp. 175-190.
 W. Schnotz, M. Bannert " Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations" Lear. and Instr., vol. 13, 2003, pp. 141- 156.
 M. Scaife, Y. Rogers, "External Cognition: how do graphical representations work" Int. J. Hum. Comp. Stud., vol. 45, 1996, pp. 185- 213.
 W. Winn, W. D. Li, "Do diagrams permit more rapid and accurate problem-solving than text?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research, 1989.
 R. Mayer "Multimedia Learning". New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
 R. Mayer "The Cambridge hand book of multimedia learning,- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
 A. Paivio, "Mental representation: A dual coding approach,". New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
 A.D. Baddeley "Working Memory," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
 R. Mayer "Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer" Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 31, 1999, pp. 611- 623.
 J. Sweller "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning," Cog. Sci., vol. 12, 1988, pp. 257-285.
 P. Cheng, R.K. Lowe, M. Scaife "Cognitive science approaches to understanding diagrammatic representations," Artif. Intell. Rev., vol. 15, 2001, pp. 79-94.
 G. A. Miller " The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information" Psych. Rev., vol. 63, 1956, pp. 81-97.
 J. Sweller, P. Chandler "Why some material is difficult to learn," Cog. and Inst., vol. 12, no. 3, 1994, pp. 185-233.
 J. Van Merrienboer, J. Sweller "Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Development and Future Directions" Educ. Psych., vol. 17, no. 2, 2005, pp. 147-175.
 A. Gemino , Y. Wand "Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of Mandatory and Optional Properties," Data& Know. Eng., vol. 55, 2005, pp. 301-326.
 A. Burton-Jones, P. M. Meso "Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test Decomposition Principles in Objectoriented Analysis," Inf. Sys. Res., vol.17, no. 1, 2006, pp. 38- 60.
 G. Moore, I. Benbasat "Development of an Instrument to Measure Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation" Inf. Sys. Res., vol. 2. no. 3, 1991, pp. 192-222.
 F. Bodart, A. Patel, R. Weber "Should optional properties be used in Conceptual Modeling? A theory and three empirical tests " Inf. Sys. Res., vol. 12, no. 4, 2001.
 J. Parsons, L. Cole "What Do the Pictures Mean? Guidelines for Experimental Evaluation of Representation Fidelity in Diagrammatical Conceptual Modeling Techniques". Data& Know. Eng., vol. 55, 2005, pp. 327-342.
 R. Mayer "Models for Understanding.," Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 59, 1989, pp. 43-64.
 J. Cohen "Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences", 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc, 1988.