Bu kaydın yasal hükümlere uygun olmadığını düşünüyorsanız lütfen sayfa sonundaki Hata Bildir bağlantısını takip ederek bildirimde bulununuz. Kayıtlar ilgili üniversite yöneticileri tarafından eklenmektedir. Nadiren de olsa kayıtlarla ilgili hatalar oluşabilmektedir. MİTOS internet üzerindeki herhangi bir ödev sitesi değildir!

How engineers understand Entity Relationship Diagrams (ERD): insights from eye tracker data

Oluşturulma Tarihi: 02-06-2015

Niteleme Bilgileri

Tür: Makale

Yayınlanma Durumu: Yayınlanmış

Dosya Biçimi: Dosya Yok

Dil: İngilizce


Yazar(lar): Tokdemir, Gul (Yazar), Çağıltay, Nergiz (Yazar), Kılıç, Özkan (Yazar),

Emeği Geçen(ler):

Dosya Yok

Anahtar Kelimeler

Diagrams, Defect detection, ERD, Eye tracking, software engineering, software engineering education, Diyagramlar, Kusur tespiti, ERD, Göz izleme, yazılım mühendisliği, yazılım mühendisliği eğitimi


Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) is one of the main tools used in software design process. This representation enables software engineers to understand system data requirements at a more comprehensive level. Designing and understanding of ERD and hence system data requirements is a critical issue for the success of software projects. In this study we are introducing an experiment environment which would be used to understand the behaviors of software engineers during designing and understanding these representations. This experimental setting is planned to be used to measure the software engineers’ performance during ERD defect detection process. We believe such an environment can be used to develop some reviewing guidelines for the software engineers to improve their reviewing process in ERD which in turn will provide some tools for the educators to improve design and review skills of future software engineers. The results of this study would also provide recommendations for the researchers in similar experiments.





KaynakçaAkoka J. et al, 1999. Relational database reverse engineering, elicitation of generalization hierarchies, advances in conceptualmodeling, ER’99 Workshops on Evolution and Change in Data Management, LNCS 1727, Paris, France, November 1999, pp.173–185.Bock D.B. and Ryan T.,1993. Accuracy in Modeling with Extended Entity Relationship and Object Oriented Data Models, Journal ofDatabase Management, 4, 4:30-39.Bogdan R.C. and Biklen S. K.,1992. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.), NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Bouzeghoub M. and Rochfeld A., 2000. OOM, la conception objet des systems, d’information, Hermes.Christensen H.L. et al, 2001. Operations for conceptual schema manipulation definitions and semantics, ADBIS 2001, Advances inDatabases & Information Systems, 5th East European Conference, Vilnius, Lithuania, September 2001, LNCS 2151.De Lucia A. et al, 2009. An experimental comparison of ER and UML class diagrams for data modeling, Journal of Empirical SoftwareEngineering, 14. 1:57-92.Entity Relationship Diagram Tool, 2010. Retrieved on 4th November 2009 from http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0072942207/student_view0/e_r_assistant.htmlEricsson K.A. and Simon H.A.,1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, Revised Edition, Bradford books/MIT Press.Gabay J., 2001. Merise et UML Pour la Modelisation des Systemes, d’information, Dunod, Paris, 2001.Genero M. et al, 2008. Defining and validating measures for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams, DataKnowledge Engineering, 534-557.Glaser B.G. and Strauss A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine PublishingCompany, Chicago, 1967.Glasgow J. et al,1995. Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspective, MIT Press.Henderson J.M., 2007. Regarding scenes, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, pp. 219–222, 2007.Hungerford B.C. et al, 2004. Reviewing Software Diagrams: A Cognitive Study, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30. 2:82-96.Just M.A.and Carpenter P.A.,1976. Eye fixations and cognitive processes, Cognitive Psychology, 8, pp. 441–480.Klemola T. and Rilling J., 2002. Modeling comprehension processes in software development, Proceedings of the First IEEEInternational Conference on Cognitive Informatics, pp. 329-337.Kumaresh S.and Baskaran R., 2000. Defect Analysis and Prevention for Software Process Quality Improvement, International Journalof Computer Applications 8, 7:42-47. Laitenberger O.et al, 2000. An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in UML design documents, Journalof Systems and Software, 53, 2:183-204.Larkin J. H. and Simon H. A., 1987. Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words, Cognitive Science, 11. 1: 65-99.Liao C. and Pavlia P.C.,2000. The impact of data models and task complexity on end-user performance, International Journal ofHuman-Computer Studies, pp. 831-845. 9Loftus G. R. and Mackworth N. H.,1978. Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing, Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, pp. 565–572.Porter A. A. et al, 1998. Understanding the Sources of Variation in Software Inspections, ACM Trans. Software Engineering andMethodology, 7, pp. 41-79.Rayner K.,1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychological Bulletin, 124, pp. 372–422.Rochfeld A. and Bouzeghoub M., 1993. From MERISE to OOM, Ingen. Syst. d’inform, 1, 2:151–176.Runeson P. and Wohlin C., 1998. An experimental Evaluation of an Experience-Based Capture-Recapture Method in Software CodeInspections, Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, Volume 3 Issue 4.Shoval P. and Frumermann I., 1994. OO and EER conceptual schemas: A comparison of user comprehension, Journal of DatabaseManagemen, 5, 4:28-38.Shoval P. and Shiran S., 1997. Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling - An experimental comparison of design quality,Data & Knowledge Engineering 21, 3:297-315.Song I.Y. and Froehlich K.,1995. Entity-relationship modeling, In: Potentials, IEEE 13, 5:29 – 34.Stennin K. and Lemon O., 2001. Aligning Logical and Psychological Perspectives on Diagrammatic Reasoning, Artificial IntelligenceReview, 15. 1-2: 29-62.Travassos G. et al, 1999. Detecting defects in object-oriented designs: using reading techniques to increase software quality, ACMSIGPLAN Notices archive 34, 10: 47-56.Underwood G. et al, 2004. Inspecting pictures for information to verify a sentence: Eye movements in general encoding and in focusedsearch, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, pp. 165–182.Wohlin C. and Aurum A., 2003a. Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Checklist-Based Reading of Entity-Relationship Diagrams,Proceedings International Symposium on Software Measures, pp. 286-296, Sydney, Australia.Wohlin C. and Aurum A., 2003b. An Evaluation of Checklist-Based Reading for Entity-Relationship Diagrams, IEEE Proceedings ofthe Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS’03).Wohlin C. and Runeson P., 1998. Defect content estimations from review data, IEEE International Conference on SoftwareEngineering, pp. 400 – 409, 19-25 Apr 1998.Zhang J.,1997. The Nature of External Representation in Problem Solving, Cognitive Science, 21. 2: 179-217.

Atıf Yapanlar

Gözat Sayfasına Dön


Sosyal Medya ve Araçlar


  • Kayıt
    • Bu ay: 0
    • Toplam: 2473
  • Online
    • Ziyaretçi: 5
    • Üye: 0
    • Toplam: 5

Detaylı İstatistikler