Cognitive effectiveness of visual instructional design languages

Journal of Visual Languages and Computing

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 359-373

  Figl, Kathrin ^a   Derntl, Michael ^b   Rodriguez, Manuel Caeiro ^c   Botturi, Luca ^d  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES AND ARTS OF SOUTHERN SWITZERLAND   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cognitive effectiveness; CoUML; E2ML; Instructional design; PoEML; Visual design languages; Visual notations

Indexed keywords

EID: 78149501130     PISSN: 1045926X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2010.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Jochems W.M.G., van Merrienboer J.J.G., Koper R. Integrated E-learning: implications for pedagogy. Technology and Organization 2003, Routledge, Farmer, London.
2. Botturi L., Stubbs T. Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design 2008, Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA.
3. Lockyer L., Bennett S., Agostinho S., Harper B. Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues. Applications and Technologies 2008.
4. Gibbons A.S., Botturi L., Boot E.W., Nelson J. Design languages. Handbook of Research in Instructional Design, AECT 2008, 633-645. M. Spector, D. Merrill, J.V. Merriënboer, M. Driscoll (Eds.).
5. Boot E.W., Nelson J., van Merriënboer J.J.G., Gibbons A.S. Stratification, elaboration, and formalization of design documents: effects on the production of instructional materials. British Journal of Educational Technology 2007, 38(5):917-933.
6. Sonderegger A., Sauer J. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics 2010, 41(3):403-410.
7. Botturi L. Visual languages for instructional design: an evaluation of the perception of E2;ML. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 2005, 16(4):329-351.
8. L. Botturi, M. Derntl, E. Boot, K. Figl, A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Kerkrade, 2006.
9. K. Figl, M. Derntl, A comparison of visual instructional design languages for blended learning, in: Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA, Orlando, Florida, 2006, pp. 941-948.
10. Costagliola G., Lucia A.D., Ferrucci F., Gravino C., Scanniello G. Assessing the usability of a visual tool for the definition of e-learning processes. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 2008, 19(6):721-737.
11. Kelly S., Pohjonen R. Worst practices for domain-specific modeling. IEEE Software 2009, 26(4):22-29.
12. Moody D.L. The "physics" of notations: towards a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2009, 35(5):756-779.
13. Gibbons A.S., Brewer E. Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems for instructional design. Innovations to Instructional Technology: Essays in Honor of M. David Merrill 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey. M. Spector, D. Wiley (Eds.).
14. Rheinfrank J., Evenson S. Design languages. Bringing Design to Software 1996, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. T. Winograd (Ed.).
15. Winograd T. A language/action perspective on the design of cooperative work. Human-Computer Interaction 1987, 3(1):3-30.
16. Object Management Group, Unified Modeling Language™ (UML®) 2.2. Available: 〈〉, 2009. http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.2/.
17. A. Rawlings, P. van Rosmalen, R. Koper, M. Rodríguez Artacho, P. Lefrere, Survey of Educational Modelling Languages (EMLs), in: CEN/ISSS WS/LT Learning Technologies Workshop, 2002.
18. Lave J., Wenger E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. Schön D. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action 1983, Temple Smith, London, UK.
20. Clark H.H., Brennan S.E. Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 1991, 127-149. American Psychological Association, Hyattsville MD. L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, S.D. Teasley (Eds.).
21. Alexander C., Ishikawa S., Silverstein M., Jacobson M., Fiksdahl-King I., Angel S. A pattern language-towns, buildings. Construction 1977, Oxford University Press, New York.
22. Gamma E., Helm R., Johnson R., Vlissides J. Design Patterns-Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software 1995, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
23. Gemino A., Wand Y. A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering 2004, 9(4):248-260.
24. Waters S.H., Gibbons A.S. Design languages, notation systems, and instructional technology: a case study. Educational Technology Research and Development 2004, 52(2):57-69.
25. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1988, 12(2):257-285.
26. Vessey I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences 1991, 22(2):219-240.
27. Green T.R.G., Petre M. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a 'cognitive dimensions' framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1996, 7(2).
28. Mayer R.E. Multimedia Learning 2001, Cambridge University Press.
29. Larkin J.H., Simon H.A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11(1):65-100.
30. Santa J.L. Spatial transformations of words and pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1977, 3:418-427.
31. Winn W. Encoding and retrieval of information in maps and diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 1990, 33(3):103-107.
32. Bajaj A., Rockwell S. COGEVAL: a. propositional framework based on cognitive theories to evaluate conceptual models. Advanced Topics in Database Research 2005, 255-282. Idea Group Publishing. K. Siau (Ed.).
33. Vessey I. Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences 1991, 22(2):219-240.
34. Kirschner P.A. Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12(1):1-10.
35. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 1956, 63:81-97.
36. Gobet F., Lane P.C.R., Croker S., Cheng P.C.H., Jones G., Oliver I., Pine J.M. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2001, 5(6):236-243.
37. Kim J., Hahn J., Hahn H., We How Do Understand a system with (So) many diagrams? Cognitive integration processes in diagrammatic reasoning. Information Systems Research 2000, 11(3):284-303.
38. E.W. Boot, Building-block solutions for developing instructional software. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University, The Netherlands, 2005.
39. Fowler M. UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language 2003, Addison Wesley, Boston, MA.
40. Gibbons A. What and how do designers design? A theory of design structure. Tech Trends 2003, 47:22-27.
41. Martinez-Ortiz I., Moreno-Ger P., Sierra J.L., Fernandez-Manjon B. Educational modeling languages. Computers and Education: E-learning, From Theory to Practice 2007, 27-40. Springer. B. Fernandez-Manjon (Ed.).
42. Fernández-Manjón B., Sánchez-Pérez J.M., Gómez-Pulido J.A., Vega-Rodríguez M.A., Bravo-Rodríguez J. Educational modeling languages. a conceptual introduction and a high-level classification, computers and education. E-Learning, From Theory to Practice 2007, Springer, Netherlands.
43. Maes A., Poels G. Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 2007, 63(3):701-724.
44. Botturi L. E2;ML: a visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 2006, 54(3):265-293.
45. Botturi L. E2;ML: a tool for sketching instructional designs. Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theories and Practices, Information Science Reference 2008, 112-132. L. Botturi, T. Stubbs (Eds.).
46. L. Botturi, The Quail model for the classification of learning goals, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano.
47. L. Botturi, E2ML-educational environment modeling language, in: Proceedings of ED-MEDIA, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003, pp. 304-311.
48. L. Botturi, K. Belfer, Pedagogical patterns for online learning, in: Proceedings of E-Learn-World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 2003.
49. Caeiro-Rodríguez M. PoEML: a. separation-of-concerns proposal to instructional design. Handbook of Visual Languages in Instructional Design: Theories and Practices, Information Science Reference 2008, 185-209. L. Botturi, T. Stubbs (Eds.).
50. M. Caeiro-Rodríguez, A modeling language for collaborative learning educational units-supporting the coordination of collaborative activities, in: Proceedings of ICEIS, 2007, pp. 334-339.
51. IMS Global, IMS Learning Design Information Model. Available: 〈〉, (2003, August 10, 2004). http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_infov1p0.html.
52. IMS Global, IMS Learning Design Best Practice and Implementation Guide. Available: 〈〉, (2003, November 21, 2003). http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/imsld_bestv1p0.html.
53. Caeiro-Rodríguez M., Marcelino M.J., Llamas-Nistal M., Anido-Rifón L., Mendes A.J. Supporting the modeling of flexible educational units PoEML: a separation of concerns approach. Journal of Universal Computer Science 2007, 13(7).
54. Derntl M., Motschnig-Pitrik R. coUML-a visual language for modeling cooperative environments. Handbook of Visual Languages for Instructional Design: Theories and Practices, Information Science Reference 2008, 155-184. L. Botturi, T. Stubbs (Eds.).
55. R. Motschnig-Pitrik, M. Derntl, Learning process models as mediators between didactical practice and web support, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER 2005), Klagenfurt, Austria, 2005, pp. 112-127.
56. K. Figl, J. Mendling, M. Strembeck, J. Recker, On the cognitive effectiveness of routing symbols in process modeling languages, in: Proceedings of Business Information Systems (BIS), Berlin, 2010.
57. Wertheimer M. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. A Sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology 1938, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK. W.D. Ellis (Ed.).
58. OMG, Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Version 1.2, ed., 2009.
59. Derntl M., Parrish P., Botturi L. Beauty and precision: weaving complex educational technology projects with visual instructional design languages. International Journal on E-Learning 2010, 9(2):185-202.