Are models better read on paper or on screen? A comparative study (original) (raw)

References

  1. Hitchman, S.: The details of conceptual modelling notations are important-a comparison of relationship normative language. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 10 (2002)
    Google Scholar
  2. Irani, P., Ware, C.: Diagramming information structures using 3D perceptual primitives. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 10(1), 1–19 (2003)
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Braude, E.J.: Software Design: From Programming to Architecture. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)
    Google Scholar
  4. Moody, D.L.: The ‘physics’ of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Green, T.R.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. People and computers V, pp 443–460 (1989)
  6. Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7(2), 131–174 (1996)
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Blackwell, A., Green, T.: Notational systems–the cognitive dimensions of notations framework. In: HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward an Interdisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)
  8. Badreddin, O., Khandoker, R., Forward, A., Masmali, O., Lethbridge, T.C.: A decade of software design and modeling: a survey to uncover trends of the practice. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 245–255 (2018)
  9. Wright, P., Lickorish, A.: Proof-reading texts on screen and paper. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2(3), 227–235 (1983)
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K.: Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: effects on reading comprehension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 58, 61–68 (2013)
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Rasmusson, M.: Reading paper-reading screen-a comparison of reading literacy in two different modes. Nord. Stud. Educ. 35(01), 3–19 (2015)
    Article Google Scholar
  12. Ackerman, R., Lauterman, T.: Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(5), 1816–1828 (2012)
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Noyes, J., Garland, K., Robbins, L.: Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: is workload another test mode effect? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 35(1), 111–113 (2004)
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Dündar, H., Akçayır, M.: Tablet vs. paper: the effect on learners’ reading performance. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 4(3), 441–450 (2012)
    Google Scholar
  15. Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J., Kegler, J.L.: E-readers, computer screens, or paper: does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 27(4), 512–519 (2013)
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Spencer, C.: Research on learners’ preferences for reading from a printed text or from a computer screen. J. Distance Educ. 21(1), 33–50 (2006)
    Google Scholar
  17. Köpper, M., Mayr, S., Buchner, A.: Reading from computer screen versus reading from paper: does it still make a difference? Ergonomics 59(5), 615–632 (2016)
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Blehm, C., Vishnu, S., Khattak, A., Mitra, S., Yee, R.W.: Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 50(3), 253–262 (2005)
    Article Google Scholar
  19. Kong, Y., Seo, Y.S., Zhai, L.: Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: a meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 123, 138–149 (2018)
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 43–52 (2003)
    Article Google Scholar
  21. Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison (1983)
    Google Scholar
  22. Kresser, C.: How artificial light is wrecking your sleep, and what to do about it. February, 22, 2013 (2013)
  23. Fucci, D., Scanniello, G., Romano, S., Juristo, N.: Need for sleep: the impact of a night of sleep deprivation on novice developers’ performance. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 46(1), 1–19 (2018)
    Article Google Scholar
  24. Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M.: Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS ONE 8(2), 6178 (2013)
    Article Google Scholar
  25. Lauterman, T., Ackerman, R.: Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 455–463 (2014)
    Article Google Scholar
  26. Evans Data Corporation: Global developer population and demographic study 2016 V2. https://evansdata.com/reports/viewRelease.php?reportID=9. Accessed 21 Mar 2021
  27. CompTIA: IT Industry Outlook 2021. https://www.comptia.org/content/research/it-industry-trends-analysis. Accessed 21 Mar 2021
  28. Sternberg, R.J.: Introduction to optimizing learning in college: tips from cognitive psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 11(651), 10–1177 (2016)
    Google Scholar
  29. OMG: Unified modeling language, version 2.5.1. Object Management Group, Inc (2017). https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1. Accessed 4 Apr 2021
  30. Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. DTIC Document (1990)
  31. Adobe. Adobe acrobat. https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat.html. Accessed Apr 2021
  32. El-Attar, M.: Statistics package—software model comprehension: paper vs. screen. https://faculty.alfaisal.edu/sites/default/files/papervsscreendata.zip. Accessed 25 July 2021
  33. Purchase, H.C., et al.: Empirical evaluation of aesthetics-based graph layout. J. Empir. Softw. Eng. 7(3), 233–255 (2002)
    Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
  34. Purchase, H.C., et al.: Comprehension of diagram syntax: an empirical study of entity relationship notations. Int. J. Hum Comput. Stud. 61(2), 187–203 (2004)
    Article Google Scholar
  35. Gopalakrishnan, S., et al.: Adapting UML activity diagrams for mobile work process modelling: experimental comparison of two notation alternatives. In: Third IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, PoEM 2010, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 145–161 (2010)
  36. Reijers, H.A., Mendling, J.: A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 41(3), 449–462 (2011)
    Article Google Scholar
  37. Dougiamas, M.: Moodle. https://moodle.org/. Accessed 21 Mar 2021
  38. Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3(2), 77–101 (2006)
    Article Google Scholar
  39. Shapiro, S.S., Wilk, M.B.: An analysis of variance test for the exponential distribution. Techno Metrics 14, 355–370 (1972)
    Article MATH Google Scholar
  40. Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things (1961)
  41. Cliff, N.: Dominance statistics: ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychol. Bull. 114(3), 494–509 (1993)
    Article Google Scholar
  42. Cliff, N.: Answering ordinal questions with ordinal data using ordinal statistics. Multivar. Behav. Res. 31(3), 331–350 (1996)
    Article Google Scholar
  43. Cliff, N.: Ordinal Methods for Behavioral Data Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)
    Google Scholar
  44. Romano, J., Kromrey, J.D., Coraggio, J., Skowronek, J.: Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys. In annual meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research, vol. 177 (2006)
  45. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Host, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslen, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer (2000)
    Book MATH Google Scholar
  46. El-Attar, M.: A comparative study of students and professionals in syntactical model comprehension experiments. Softw. Syst. Model. 18(6), 3283–3329 (2019)
    Article Google Scholar
  47. Mackinlay, J.: Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Trans. Graph. 5(2), 110–141 (1986)
    Article Google Scholar
  48. Winn, W.D.: An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18, 162–185 (1993)
    Article Google Scholar
  49. Lohse, G.L.: A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8(4), 353–388 (1993)
    Article Google Scholar
  50. Treisman, A.: Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 8, 194–214 (1982)
    Article Google Scholar
  51. Bramão, I., Reis, A., Petersson, K.M., Faísca, L.: The role of color information on object recognition: a review and meta-analysis. Acta Physiol. (Oxf) 138(1), 244–253 (2011)
    Google Scholar
  52. Wurm, L.H., Legge, G.E., Isenberg, L.M., Luebker, A.: Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19, 899–911 (1993)
    Article Google Scholar

Download references