臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在資訊系統開發階段的需求分析領域中，資訊系統概念模式化「i*」語言是以一種圖像式高度視覺化方式，來呈現資訊系統模式化過程，且多數概念模式化語言的表示形式都是透過視覺化的表達方式來進行，從已有研究來看，現有評估概念模式化方法績效的文獻中，皆無概念模式化語言在視覺化呈現的相關問題的評估，在現今的研究中亦較少受到關注，影響了系統分析人員對概念模式化方法的選擇。
本研究探討圖像模式化語言的感知。Moody等學者提出，複雜度提升可能影響系統分析人員對於i*依賴關係的認知。為增強空間知識在視覺上感知形式之理解力，提出空間知識有三個資訊層面的結構：地標、路徑、俯視知識。本研究據此設計視覺上的感知整合提示功能，希望能夠提升i*視覺化符號的認知效率。
本研究透過實驗法，比較傳統i*圖形的「單一圖形表示法」、Moody文獻中所提之「多圖形表示法」以及本研究所設計的「多圖形+感知整合提示表示法」三種方式對於i*使用者的認知有效性之影響，並探討圖形在不同的任務搜尋上對於此三種表示方式的使用效能。經實驗後驗證，感知整合提示法，確實能增強受試者對於i*語言的理解力，並在不同的任務搜尋上亦較有效率；最後，希望本研究能為後續的概念建模研究工作提供一些參考。

Most of the conceptual modeling languages represent the reality in a graphical manner. Also, the i* language used to express the requirements for information systems to be analyzed is also graphical. However, the current literature has not evaluated the effectiveness of visual representations in the language.
This study aims at perceptual integration of conceptual modeling languages. According to Moody, increased complexity in a modeled domain may affect the understanding of i* dependency relationships. Current literature also proposes that spatial knowledge structure should include three dimensions including landmarks, route, survey knowledge. For the purpose of enhancing visual perception regarding spatial knowledge, this study designs visual notations to achieve perceptual integration. We expect the design can increase the cognitive effectiveness of i* users.
This study conducted an experiment to compare three notation designs. The first design is "multi- diagram + perceptual prompt Integration," proposed in this study. The second design is the original i* notation ("single diagram") and the third design is the Moody’s method called "multi-diagram." We evaluated the three designs for i* to find out whether cognitive effectiveness would be affected by notation design and whether an interaction effect would exist between notation design and task type. Our results confirmed the cognitive effectiveness can be enhanced with the proposed "multi- diagram + perceptual prompt Integration" design. Hopefully, the findings would offer some guidelines for future studies.

目錄
指導教授推薦書
論文口試委員會審定書
長庚大學授權書 iii
致謝 iv
中文摘要 v
英文摘要 vii
目錄 viii
圖目錄 xii
表目錄 xiii
第一章緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 3
1.3 研究目的 5
1.4 研究流程 6
第二章文獻探討 8
2.1 I*語言的設計緣由 8
2.2 I*語言的應用 10
2.2.1 目標導向需求語言圖形化概念 10
2.2.2 語言的行動者元素 15
2.2.3 i*框架模型 16
2.3 視覺化語言的感知整合性質 18
2.3.1 i*單一圖形表示法 18
2.3.2 多圖形表示法 19
2.3.3 增強多圖形感知整合提示認知功能 20
2.4 評估I*語言的感知整合 23
2.5 認知配適理論 25
2.6 模式化語言的使用評估 26
第三章研究方法 30
3.1 研究架構與假說 30
3.2 變項操作型定義 32
3.2.1 變項操弄 32
3.2.2 依變項(Dependent Variable) 33
3.2.3 控制變項(controlled variable) 35
3.3 實驗設計 36
3.3.1 實驗參與者 36
3.3.2 實驗工具 37
3.3.3 實驗流程 44
3.4 實驗統計分析方法 46
第四章資料分析 49
4.1 個人特質調查分析 49
4.2 教學成果調查分析 51
4.3 認知有效性資料量分析 52
4.3.1 填答正確性分析 53
4.3.2 填答時間分析 54
4.4 認知易用性分析 56
第五章結論 58
5.1 研究結論 58
5.2 研究建議 61
5.3 研究限制 61
5.4 未來研究方向 62
參考文獻 64

附錄A：個人背景調查 69
附錄B：「感知整合提示表示法組｣實驗問卷 72
附錄C:「無感知整合提示表示法組｣實驗問卷 81
附錄D：「單一圖形表示法組｣實驗問卷 90
附錄E：感知整合提示表示法實驗情境圖 99
附錄F：無整合提示表示法實驗情境圖 105
附錄G：單一圖形表示法實驗情境圖 111

 
圖目錄
圖1.4-1：本研究流程圖 7
圖 2.2-1：依賴關係連結 14
圖 2.2-2：依賴關係連結類型圖 14
圖 2.2-3：行動者(Actors)示意圖 16
圖 2.2-4：單一圖形表示法 17
圖 2.3-1：多圖形感知整合 20
圖 2.3-2：地標感知整合提示符號 22
圖 2.3-3：路徑感知整合提示符號 22
圖 2.3-4：俯視知識感知整合提示符號 23
圖 2.5-1：認知配適理論(Cognitive fit theory) 26
圖 2.6-1：認知適配三要素 27
圖 3.1-1：研究架構圖 32
圖 3.3-1：單一圖形信用卡業務實驗情境圖 42
圖 3.3-2：行動者所屬頁碼 43
圖 3.3-3：多圖形信用卡業務實驗情境圖 44
圖 3.3-4：多圖形+感知整合提示表示法 45
圖 3.3-5：實驗流程 47

表目錄
表 2.2-1：i *模式化語言意圖元素符號整理 11
表 2.2-2：i *模式化語言意圖連結符號整理 12
表 2.6-1：量測受影響變數表(本研究整理) 28
表 3.2-1：獨變項操作定義 33
表 3.2-2：依變項定義與衡量方式 35
表 3.3-1：實驗教學工具說明 37
表 3.3-2：量測工具說明 39
表 3.3-3：本實驗之問卷題型分組 40
表 4.1-1：基本資料人數分佈概況 49
表 4.1-2：個人特質調查卡方檢定分析表 50
表 4.2-1：教學成果調查統計量 51
表 4.3-1：組別得分在不同任務交互平衡卡方檢定 52
表 4.3-2：組別時間在不同任務交互平衡卡方檢定 52
表 4.3-3：填答正確性分析表列 53
表 4.3-4：受試者得分敘述統計 54
表 4.3-5：填答時間分析表列 55
表 4.3-6：受試者時間敘述統計 55
表 4.3-7：認知易用性檢定分析 57
表 4.3-8：認知易用性得分統計 57
表 5.1-1：本研究假說驗證結果 59

Ashcraft, M.H. Human Memory and Cognition. Harper Collins College, New York, 1993.
Bovy, P.H.L., Stern E. Route Choice. Wayfinding in Transport Networks. Studies in Operational Regional Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Netherlands, 1990.
Chien, S.-F., Flemming U. "Design Space Navigation in Generative Design Systems". Automation in Construction, 11:1, pp.1-22, 2002.
Darken, R.P., Sibert J.L. "A toolset for navigation in virtual environments", in, Proceedings of ACM User Interface Softwave and Technology, pp.157-165, 1993.
Dodge, M., Kitchin R. Mapping Cyberspace. Routledge London, 2001.
Elahi, G., &; Yu, E. "A goal oriented approach for modeling and analyzing security trade-offs", 1997.
Estrada, H.,Rebollar A., et al. An Empirical Evaluation of the i* Framework in a Model-Based Software Generation Environment. In: Dubois, E., Pohl K., editors. Advanced Information Systems Engineering: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; pp. 513-527. 2006.
Evermann, J., Wand Y. "Ontological Modeling Rules for Uml: An Empirical Assessment". Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46:Special Issue, pp.14-29, 2006.
Flood, R.L. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science. Springer, 1993.
Franch, X., The i∗ Framework: The Way Ahead, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2013, January 14, Access from http://rcis-conf.com/rcis2012/document/slides/RCIS12Kkeynote-XavierFranch.pdf
Gemino, A., Wand Y. "Evaluating Modeling Techniques Based on Models of Learning". Communications of the ACM, 46:10, pp.79-84, 2003.
Gemino, A., Wand Y. "A Framework for Empirical Evaluation of Conceptual Modeling Techniques". Requirements Engineering, 9:4, pp.248-260, 2004.
Hahn, J., Kim J. "Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work With? Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Intergration Process of Systems Analysis and Design". ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 6:3, pp.181-213, 1999.
ITU-T, I.T.U. ITU-T Recommendation Z.151 - User Requirements Notation (URN),2008.
Jones, J.C. Design Methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992.
Kan, S.,Basili V.R., et al. "Software Quality: An Overview from the Perspective of Total Quality Management". IBM Systems Journal, 33:1, pp.4-19, 1994.
Kim, J.,Hahn J., et al. "How Do We Understand a System with (So) Many Diagrams? Cognitive Integration Processes in Diagrammatic Reasoning". Information Systems Research, 11:3, pp.284-303, 2000.
Kosslyn, S.M. "Understanding Charts and Graphs". Applied cognitive psychology, 3:3, pp.185-225, 1989.
Larkin, J., &; Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth tenthousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), pp. 65-100.
Laszlo, E.,Masulli I., et al. The Evolution of Cognitive Maps: New Paradigms for the Twenty-First Century. Gordon &; Breach, Admsterdam, 1993.
Lockerbie, J., Maiden N.A., Redepend: Tool Support for i* Modelling in Large-Scale Industrial Projects, pp.69-72 Montpellier, France, 2008.
Mayer, N.,Rifaut A., et al., Towards a Risk-Based Security Requirements Engineering Framework, 2005.
Messaris, P. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1997.
McConnell, S., &; Johannis, D., Code complete (Vol. 2): Microsoft Press, 2004.
Moody, D.L. Dealing with Complexity: A Practical Method for Representing Large Entity Relationship Models. University of Melbourne, master, 2001.
Moody, D.L., Shanks G.G. "Improving the Quality of Data Models: Empirical Validation of a Quality Management Framework". Information systems, 28:6, pp.619-650, 2003.
Moody, D.L.,Heymans P., et al. "Visual Syntax Does Matter: Improving the Cognitive Effectiveness of the i* Visual Notation". Requirements Engineering, 15:2, pp.141-175, 2010.
Mylopoulos, J.,Chung L., et al. "From Object-Oriented to Goal-Oriented Requirements Analysis". Communications of the ACM, 42:1, pp.31-37, 1999.
Paulson, D., Wand Y. "An Automated Approach to Information Systems Decomposition". Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 18:3, pp.174-189, 1992.
Péruch, P.,Belingard L., et al. Transfer of Spatial Knowledge from Virtual to Real Environments. Spatial Cognition Ii. Hamburg: Springer; pp. 253-264. 2000.
Petre, M. "Why Looking Isn't Always Seeing: Readership Skills and Graphical Programming". Communications of the ACM, 38:6, pp.33-44, 1995.
Saunders, A. Graphics and How They Communicate. In: Moore, D.M., Dwyer F.M., editors. Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual Learning Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Educational Technology. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Educational Technology Publication; pp. 183-208. 1994.
Shaft, T.M., Vessey I. "The Role of Cognitive Fit in the Relationship between Software Comprehension and Modification". Mis Quarterly, pp.29-55, 2006.
Siau, K., Rossi M. "Evaluation of Information Modeling Methods-a Review". System Sciences, 5, pp.314-322, 1998.
Siau, K. "Informational and Computational Equivalence in Comparing Information Modeling Methods". Journal of Database Management (JDM), 15:1, pp.73-86, 2004.
Siegel, A.W., White S.H. The Development of Spatial Representations of Large-Scale Environments. Academic Press, New York, 1975.
Solso, R.L. Cognitive Psychology. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1995.
Spencer, C.,Blades M., et al. The Child in the Physical Environment: The Development of Spatial Knowledge and Cognition. John Wiley &; Sons Great Britain, 1989.
Sweller, J. "Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load". Educational Psychology Review, 22:2, pp.123-138, 2010.
Vessey, I. "Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*". Decision Sciences, 22:2, pp.219-240, 1991.
Vessey, I., Galletta D. "Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition". Information Systems Research, 2:1, pp.63-84, 1991.
Yeap, W.-K., Jefferies M.E. "On Early Cognitive Mapping". Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2:2, pp.85-116, 2000.
Yu, E.S.K. Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process Reengineering. University of Toronto, Ph. D., 1995.
Yu, E.S.K., Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering, pp.226-235 Los Alamitos, California, 1997.
Yu, E.S.K.,Giorgini P., et al. Social Modeling for Requirements Engineering. Mit Press, Cambridge, 2011.
邱皓政. 《量化研究法 (二)統計原理與分析技術》. 雙葉書廊, 臺北市, 民94.