Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

SaPeer and ReverseSaPeer: teaching requirements elicitation interviews with role-playing and role reversal

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among the variety of the available requirements elicitation techniques, interviews are the most commonly used. Performing effective interviews is challenging, especially for students and novice analysts, since interviews’ success depends largely on soft skills and experience. Despite their diffusion and their challenging nature, when it comes to requirements engineering education and training (REET), limited resources and few well-founded pedagogical approaches are available to allow students to acquire and improve their skills as interviewers. To overcome this limitation, this paper presents two pedagogical approaches, namely SaPeer and ReverseSaPeer. SaPeer uses role-playing, peer review and self-assessment to enable students to experience first-hand the difficulties related to the interviewing process, reflect on their mistakes, and improve their interview skills by practice and analysis. ReverseSaPeer builds on the first approach and includes a role reversal activity in which participants play the role of a customer interviewed by a competent interviewer. We evaluate the effectiveness of SaPeer through a controlled quasi-experiment, which shows that the proposed approach significantly reduces the amount of mistakes made by the participants and that it is perceived as useful and easy by the participants. ReverseSaPeer and the impact of role reversal are analyzed through a thematic analysis of the participant’s reflections. The analysis shows that not only the students perceive the analysis as beneficial, but also that they have emotional involvement in learning. This work contributes to the body of knowledge of REET with two methods, quantitative and qualitative evaluated, respectively. Furthermore, we share the pedagogical material used, to enable other educators to apply and possibly tailor the approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The design is analogous to a randomized trial, but within a sample that could not be selected considering the entire student population. The design could also be regarded as an experiment in case study settings [53].

  2. We distinguish between SaPeer treatment (i.e., steps 1 to 6) and SaPeer approach, which is the general pedagogical approach in Sect. 3.

  3. The complete description of the case studies (Product Description First Interview and Product Description Second Interview, respectively) can be found in our shared repository [30].

  4. We could not apply the T test, as the samples for each mistake did not pass the Shapiro–Wilk’s test of normality in most of the cases.

  5. We could not apply the unpaired T test, as the samples for each mistake did not pass the Shapiro–Wilk’s test of normality in most of the cases.

  6. For those mistakes in which the practice-only treatment is clearly more effective (white bars in Fig. 6), we performed the same type of test, but to verify whether the effectiveness of SaPeer is significantly lower than the practice-only treatment. Results were not significant.

  7. The students’ reflection are made available in our repository [30].

References

  1. Adams S (2001) Interviewing for journalists. Psychology Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Agarwal R, Tanniru MR (1990) Knowledge acquisition using structured interviewing: an empirical investigation. JMIS 7(1):123–140

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aranda AM, Dieste O, Juristo N (2016) Effect of domain knowledge on elicitation effectiveness: an internally replicated controlled experiment. TSE 42(5):427–451

    Google Scholar 

  4. Argyris C, Schon DA (1974) Theory in practice: increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  5. Auriol G, Baron C, Fourniols JY (2008) Teaching requirements skills within the context of a physical engineering project. In: REET 2008. IEEE, pp 6–11

  6. Aurum A, Petersson H, Wohlin C (2002) State-of-the-art: software inspections after 25 years. Softw Test Verif Reliab 12(3):133–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bacchelli A, Bird C (2013) Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In: ICSE’13. IEEE, pp 712–721

  8. Bano M, Zowghi D, Ferrari A, Spoletini P, Donati B (2018) Learning from mistakes: an empirical study of elicitation interviews performed by novices. In: 2018 IEEE 26th international requirements engineering conference (RE). IEEE, pp 182–193

  9. Bano M, Zowghi D, Ferrari A, Spoletini P, Donati B (2019) Teaching requirements elicitation interviews: an empirical study of learning from mistakes. Requirements Eng 24:259–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-019-00313-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract 5(1):7–74

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boekaerts M (2010) The crucial role of motivation and emotion in classroom learning. In: The nature of learning: using research to inspire practice, pp 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487-6-en

  12. Boud D (2012) Developing student autonomy in learning. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Boud D (2013) Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (1999) Peer learning and assessment. Assess Eval High Educ 24(4):413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J (2014) Peer learning in higher education: learning from and with each other. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Braun V, Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ (eds) APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association, p 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004

  17. Bruffee KA (1993) Collaborative learning: higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (2015) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carver J, Jaccheri L, Morasca S, Shull F (2004) Issues in using students in empirical studies in software engineering education. In: Proceedingsof the 5th international workshop on enterprise networking and computing in healthcare industry (IEEE Cat. No. 03EX717). IEEE, pp 239–249

  20. Christiaens G, Baldwin JH (2002) Use of dyadic role-playing to increase student participation. Nurse Educ 27(6):251–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Connor AM, Buchan J, Petrova K (2009) Bridging the research-practice gap in requirements engineering through effective teaching and peer learning. In: 2009 Sixth international conference on information technology: new generations. IEEE, pp 678–683

  22. Damian D, Al-Ani B, Cubranic D, Robles L (2005) Teaching requirements engineering in global software development: a report on a three-university collaboration. In: REET 2005. IEEE, pp 685–690

  23. Davis A, Dieste O, Hickey A, Juristo N, Moreno AM (2006) Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: RE’06. IEEE, pp 179–188

  24. Dewey J (1986) Experience and education. In: The educational forum, vol 50. Taylor & Francis, pp 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764

  25. Distanont A, Haapasalo H, Vaananen M, Lehto J (2012) The engagement between knowledge transfer and requirements engineering. IJKL 1(2):131–156

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dochy F, Segers M, Sluijsmans D (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Stud High Educ 24(3):331–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Donati B, Ferrari A, Spoletini P, Gnesi S (2017) Common mistakes of student analysts in requirements elicitation interviews. In: International working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, pp 148–164

  28. Doorn N, Kroesen JO (2013) Using and developing role plays in teaching aimed at preparing for social responsibility. Sci Eng Ethics 19(4):1513–1527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferrari A, Spoletini P, Bano M, Zowghi D (2019) Learning requirements elicitation interviews with role-playing, self-assessment and peer-review. In: 2019 IEEE 27th international requirements engineering conference (RE), pp 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2019.00015

  30. Ferrari A, Spoletini P, Bano M, Zowghi D (2020) SaPeer and ReverseSaPeer approaches for training students in requirements elicitation interviews—educational material (version 2.0). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2625706

  31. Fowler J (2008) Experiential learning and its facilitation. Nurse Educ Today 28(4):427–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gabrysiak G, Giese H, Seibel A, Neumann S (2010) Teaching requirements engineering with virtual stakeholders without software engineering knowledge. In: REET’10. IEEE, pp 36–45

  33. Greenberg J, Eskew DE (1993) The role of role playing in organizational research. J Manag 19(2):221–241

    Google Scholar 

  34. Greenblat CS (1973) Teaching with simulation games: a review of claims and evidence. Teach Sociol 1(1):62–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hadar I, Soffer P, Kenzi K (2014) The role of domain knowledge in requirements elicitation via interviews: an exploratory study. REJ 19(2):143–159

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hall T, Flynn V (2001) Ethical issues in software engineering research: a survey of current practice. Empir Softw Eng 6(4):305–317

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Hamer J, Cutts Q, Jackova J, Luxton-Reilly A, McCartney R, Purchase H, Riedesel C, Saeli M, Sanders K, Sheard J (2008) Contributing student pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bull 40(4):194–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hammond M, Collins R (1991) Self-directed learning: critical practice. ERIC

  39. Harris LR, Brown GT (2013) Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer-and self-assessment to improve student learning: case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teach Teach Educ 36:101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnson RT, Johnson DW (2008) Active learning: cooperation in the classroom. Annu Rep Educ Psychol Jpn 47:29–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. MacLeod L, Greiler M, Storey MA, Bird C, Czerwonka J (2018) Code reviewing in the trenches: challenges and best practices. IEEE Softw 35(4):34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. McIntosh S, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2016) An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality. Empir Softw Eng 21(5):2146–2189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Meyer DK, Turner JC (2006) Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educ Psychol Rev 18(4):377–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moreno JL (1946) Psychodrama, vol 1. Beacon House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Niknafs A, Berry DM (2013) An industrial case study of the impact of domain ignorance on the effectiveness of requirements idea generation during requirements elicitation. In: RE’13. IEEE, pp 279–283

  46. Nunan D (1996) Towards autonomous learning: some theoretical, empirical and practical issues. In: Pemberton R et al. (eds) Taking control: autonomy in language learning, Hong Kong University Press. pp 13–24

  47. Ouhbi S, Idri A, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A (2015) Requirements engineering education: a systematic mapping study. Requir Eng 20(2):119–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pearce J, Mulder R, Baik C (2009) Involving students in peer review: case studies and practical strategies for university teaching. https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/jonmp/pubs/Praze/Student_Peer_Review.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2020

  49. Pitts MG, Browne GJ (2007) Improving requirements elicitation: an empirical investigation of procedural prompts. Inf Syst J 17(1):89–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Race P (2001) The lecturer’s toolkit: a practical guide to learning, teaching and assessment. Psychology Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  51. Regev G, Gause DC, Wegmann A (2009) Experiential learning approach for requirements engineering education. REJ 14(4):269–287

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R et al (2013) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  53. Runeson P, Host M, Rainer A, Regnell B (2012) Case study research in software engineering: guidelines and examples. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Singer J, Vinson NG (2002) Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(12):1171–1180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Spoletini P, Ferrari A, Bano M, Zowghi D, Gnesi S (2018) Interview review: an empirical study on detecting ambiguities in requirements elicitation interviews. In: International working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, pp 101–118

  56. Svensson RB, Regnell B (2017) Is role playing in requirements engineering education increasing learning outcome? Requirements Eng 22:475–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0248-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Svensson RB, Regnell B (2017) Is role playing in requirements engineering education increasing learning outcome? Requir Eng 22(4):475–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. To J, Panadero E (2019) Peer assessment effects on the self-assessment process of first-year undergraduates. Assess Eval High Educ 44(6):920–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1548559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Topping K (2003) Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility. In: Segers M, Dochy F, Cascallar E (eds) Optimising new modes of assessment: in search of qualities and standards. Innovation and change in professional education, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  60. Van Zundert M, Sluijsmans D, Van Merriënboer J (2010) Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn Instr 20(4):270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Walia GS, Carver JC (2013) Using error abstraction and classification to improve requirement quality: conclusions from a family of four empirical studies. Empir Softw Eng 18(4):625–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wang C, Cui P, Daneva M, Kassab M (2018) Understanding what industry wants from requirements engineers: an exploration of re jobs in Canada. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, p 41

  63. Wieringa R, Daneva M (2015) Six strategies for generalizing software engineering theories. Sci Comput Program 101:136–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Zowghi D, Coulin C (2005) Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Aurum A, Wohlin C (eds) Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. Zowghi D, Paryani S (2003) Teaching requirements engineering through role playing: lessons learnt. In: RE’03. IEEE, pp 233–241

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CCF-1718377.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISTI-CNR: Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione “A. Faedo”, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Area della Ricerca di Pisa, Via Giuseppe Moruzzi, 1, 56127, Pisa, PI, Italy

    Alessio Ferrari

  2. Department of Software Engineering and Game Development, Kennesaw State University, Building J, Office 375, 1100 South Marietta Pkwy, Marietta, GA, 30060, USA

    Paola Spoletini

  3. School of Info Technology, Deakin University Burwood Campus/221, Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia

    Muneera Bano

  4. Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Didar Zowghi

Authors
  1. Alessio Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paola Spoletini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muneera Bano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Didar Zowghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paola Spoletini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., Bano, M. et al. SaPeer and ReverseSaPeer: teaching requirements elicitation interviews with role-playing and role reversal. Requirements Eng 25, 417–438 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-020-00334-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-020-00334-0

Keywords