Using iconic graphics in entity-relationship diagrams: The impact on understanding

Journal of Database Management

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 22-41

  Masri, Kamal ^a   Parker, Drew ^a   Gemino, Andrew ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

CLT; Cognition; Conceptual modeling; CTML; ER diagrams; Understanding

Indexed keywords

PROBLEM SOLVING;

COGNITION; CONCEPTUAL MODEL; CTML; ER DIAGRAMS; UNDERSTANDING;

DATA MINING;

EID: 50549083953     PISSN: 10638016     EISSN: 15338010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jdm.2008070102     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agarwal, R., De, P., & Sinha, A. P. (1999). Comprehending object and process models: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 541-556.
2. Andrade, J.,Ares, J., Garcia, R., Pazos, J., Rodriguez, S., & Silva, A. (2004). A methodological framework for generic conceptualisation: Problem-sensitivity in software engineering. Information & Software Technology, 46(10), 635-649.
3. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
4. Bajaj, A. (2004). The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: An empirical study with data models. Requirements Engineering, 9(4), 261-270.
5. Batra, D. (2005). Conceptual data modeling patterns: Representation and validation. Journal of Database Management, 16(2), 84-106.
6. Batra, D., & Davis, J. G. (1992). Conceptual data modelling in database design: Similarities and differences between expert and novice designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37(l), 83-101.
7. Batra, D., Hoffer, J. A., & Bostrom, R. P. (1990). Comparing representations with relational and EER models. Communications of the ACM, 33(2), 126-139.
8. Bodart, F., Patel, A., Sim, M., & Weber, R. (2001). Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 384-405.
9. Burton-Jones, A., & Meso, P. (2006). Conceptualizing systems for understanding: An empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research, 17(l), 38-60.
10. Chen, P.P.-S. (1976). The entity-relationship model-toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9-36.
11. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval times from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8, 240-247.
12. Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(11), 1268-1287.
13. Davis, G. B. (1982). Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal, 21(1), 4-30.
14. Gemino, A. (2004). Empirical comparisons of animation and narration in requirements validation. Requirements Engineering, 9(3), 153-168.
15. Gemino,A., & Wand, Y. (2003). Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 79-84.
16. Gemino,A., & Wand, Y. (2004).A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering, 9(4), 248-260.
17. Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2005). Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 301-326.
18. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Machesky, J. J. (1989). Data analysis and learning: An experimental study of data modeling tools. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31(4), 367-391.
19. Khatri, V., Vessey, I., Ramesh, V., Clay, P., & Park, S.-J. (2006). Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and IS domain knowledge. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 81-99.
20. Kim, J., Hahn, J., & Hahn, H. (2000). How do we understand a system with (so) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research, 11(3), 284-303.
21. Kim, Y.-G., & March, S. T. (1995). Comparing data modeling formalisms. 38(6), 103-115.
22. Kung, C. H., & Solvberg, A. (1986). Activity modelling and behaviour modelling. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the IFIPWG 8.1 Working Conference on Comparative Review of Information Systems Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, Amsterdam.
23. Kunnath, M. L. A., Cornell, R. A., Kysilka, M. K., & Witta, L. (2007). An experimental research study on the effect of pictorial icons on a user-learner's performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1454-1480.
24. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100.
25. Lee, J., & Truex, D. P. (2000). Exploring the impact of formal training in ISD methods on the cognitive structure of novice information systems developers. Information Systems Journal, 10(4), 347-367.
26. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
27. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371.
28. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 312-320.
30. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 81-97.
31. Moody, D. (1996). Graphical entity relationship models: Towards a more user understandable representation of data. In Conceptual modeling ER '96 (LNCS 1157, pp. 227-244). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
32. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(l), 1-4.
33. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(l), 63-71.
34. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
36. Rockwell, S., & Bajaj, A. (2005). Cogeval:Applying cognitive theories to evaluate conceptual models. In K. Siau (Ed.), Advanced topics in database research (Vol. 4). Idea Group Publishing.
37. Shaft, T. M., & Vessey, I. (1995). The relevance of application domain knowledge: The case of computer program comprehension. Information Systems Research, 6(3), 286-299.
38. Shaft, T. M., & Vessey, I. (1998). The relevance of application domain knowledge: Characterizing the computer program comprehension process. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(1), 51-78.
39. Shanks, G. (1997). Conceptual data modelling: An empirical study of expert and novice data modellers. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 63-73.
40. Siau, K. (2004). Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. Journal of Database Management, 15(1), 73-86.
41. Siau, K. (2005). Human-computer interaction: The effect of application domain knowledge on icon visualization. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 53-62.
42. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
43. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-223.
44. Topi, H., & Ramesh, V. (2002). Human factors research on data modeling: A review of prior research, an extended framework and future research directions. Journal of Database Management, 13(2), 3-19.
45. Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22(2), 219-240.
46. Vessey, I., & Conger, S. (1994). Requirements specification: Learning object, process, and data methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 37(5), 102-113.
47. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1990). An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16(11), 1282-1292.
48. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Information systems and conceptual modeling: A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363-376.
49. Wang, S. (1996). Two MIS analysis methods: An experimental comparison. Journal of Education for Business, 71(3), 136-141.
50. Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: An empirical study of learning and retention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2), 68-82.
51. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.
52. Yadav, S. B., Bravoco, R. R., Chatfield, A. T., & Rajkumar, T.M.(1988). Comparison of analysis techniques for information requirement determination. Communications of the ACM, 31(9), 1090-1097.