LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Phalp, Keith T.; Jeary, Sherry; Adlem, A.; Vincent, Jonathan (2009)
Publisher: British Computer Society
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: csi
Within requirements engineering it is generally accepted that in writing specifications (or indeed any requirements phase document), one attempts to produce an artefact which will be simple to comprehend for the user. That is, whether the document is intended for customers to validate requirements, or engineers to understand what the design must deliver, comprehension is an important goal for the author. Indeed, advice on producing ‘readable’ or ‘understandable’ documents is often included in courses on requirements engineering. However, few researchers, particularly within the software engineering domain, have attempted either to define or to understand the nature of comprehension and it’s implications for guidance on the production of quality requirements. \ud \ud In contrast, this paper examines thoroughly the nature of textual comprehension, drawing heavily from research in discourse process, and suggests some implications for requirements (and other) software documentation. In essence, we find that the guidance on writing requirements, often prevalent within software engineering, may be based upon assumptions which are an oversimplification of the nature of comprehension. Furthermore, that these assumptions may lead to rules which detract from the quality of the requirements document and, thus, the understanding gained by the reader. Finally the paper suggests lessons learned which may be useful in formulating future guidance for the production of requirements documentation. \ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Glass, R., 1998. Software Runaways. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
    • 2. Bray, I.K., 2002. An introduction to requirements engineering. Harlow: Addison-Wesley.
    • 3. Grasser, A.C., Singer, M. and Trabasso, T., 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371-395.
    • 4. Fletcher, C.R., Van Den Broek, P. and Arthur, E.J, 1996. A model of narrative comprehension and recall. in: B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 141-163.
    • 5. Van Den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C.R. and Thurlow, R, 1996. A “landscape” view of reading: fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 165-187.
    • 6. Bamberg, M. and Moissinac, L., 2003. Discourse development. B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 141-163.
    • 7. Crystal D., 1997. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • 8. Graesser, A.C., Millis, K.K. and Zwaan, R.A., 1997. Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
    • 9. Cockburn, A., 2001. Writing effective use cases. London: Addison-Wesley.
    • 10. Kulak, D. and Guiney, E., 2000. Use cases: requirements in context. London: ACM Press.
    • 11. Foltz, P.W., 2003. Quantitative cognitive models of text and discourse processing. in: A.C. Grasser, M.A. Gernsbacher and S.R. Goldman, eds. Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 487-523.
    • 12. Zwaan, R.A. and Singer, M., 2003. Text comprehension. in: A.C. Grasser, M.A. Gernsbacher and S.R. Goldman, eds. Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83-121.
    • 13. Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J. and Gilliom, L.A., 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
    • 14. Gibbs, R.W., 1996. Metaphor as a constraint on text understanding. B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 215-240.
    • 15. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B. and D Kintsch, W., 1996. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (1), 1-43.
    • 16. Britton, B.K. and Gulgoz, S., 1991. Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (3), 329-345.
    • 17. Gernsbacher, M.A., 1996. The structure-building framework: what it is, what it might also be, and why. .K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 289-311.
    • 18. Zwaan, R.A. and Singer, M, 2003. Text comprehension. A.C. Grasser, M.A. Gernsbacher and S.R. Goldman, eds. Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 83-121.
    • 19. Ferreira, F., 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.
    • 20. Gordon, P.C. and Scearce, K.A., 1995. Pronominalization and discourse coherence, discourse structure and pronoun interpretation. Memory and Cognition, 23 (3), 313-323.
    • 21. Greene, S.B., McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R., 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18 (2), 266-283.
    • 22. McKoon, G., Gerrig, R.J. and Greene, S.B., 1996. Pronoun resolution without pronouns: some consequences of memory-based text processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22 (4), 919-932.
    • 23. Gordon, P.C. and Chan, D., 1995. Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231.
    • 24. Gordon, P.C., Grosz, B.J. and Gilliom, L.A., 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
    • 25. Harley, T.A., 2001. The psychology of language: From data to theory. 2nd ed. Hove: Psychology Press.
    • 26. Johnson-Laird, P.N., 1968. The choice of the passive voice in a communicative task. British Journal of Psychology, 59, 7-15.
    • 27. Ferreira, F., 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (6), 715-736.
    • 28. Kintsch, W. and Van Dijk, T.A., 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
    • 29. Moore, J.D. and Wiemer-Hastings, P., 2003. Discourse in computational linguistics and artificial intelligence. A.C. Grasser, M.A. Gernsbacher and S.R. Goldman, eds. Handbook of discourse processes, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 439-485.
    • 30. Mannes, S. and St. George, M., 1996. Effects of prior knowledge on text comprehension: a simple modeling approach. in: B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 115-139.
    • 31. Van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W: Strategies of Discourse Comprehension: Academic Press New York, 1983
    • 32. Curtis, B., H. Krasner, et al. (1988). A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(11): 1268-1287.
    • 33. Curtis, B., D. Walz, et al. (1989). Studying the Process of Software Design Teams. Proceedings of the 5th International Software Process Workshop, Kennebunkport, Maine, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press.
    • 34. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287
    • 35. Mannes, S.M. and Kintsch, W., 1987. Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4 (2), 91-115.
    • 36. Goldman, S.R., Varma, S., and Cote, N., 1996. Extending capacityconstrained construction integration: toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension. in: B.K. Britton and A.C. Graesser, eds. Models of understanding text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
    • 37. Graesser, A.C., Gernsbacher, M.A., and Goldman, S.R., 2003. Introduction to the handbook of discourse processes. A.C. Grasser, M.A. Gernsbacher and S.R. Goldman, eds. Handbook of discourse processes, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • 38. Stanfield R.A. and Zwaan, R.A., 2001. The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12 (2), 153-156.
    • 39. Zwaan, R.A., Stanfield, R.A. and Yaxley, R.H., 2002. Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13 (2), 168-171.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article