The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE)Approach to Developing a Large scale Personal                         Large-scale...
Personal Learning Environments (PLE)“a pedagogy-driven infrastructure that facilitates learners to   integrate distributed...
Motivation                              I know which tools my       Which tools should I   learners would need            ...
Motivation Users (many)      high potential to elicit requirements from domain knowledge [Hipp86]      usually not acqu...
Theoretical Premises Transcriptivity Theory (Jäger, 2002) describing the operational  semantics ATLAS (Architecture for ...
The ROLE SRE Approach – Support for the Long Tail            No Mainstream Web 2.0 RE!                “O                ...
ROLE Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) – i* SR
ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Required Features
ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Initial Mockup
ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Early Prototypes                                             Quantitative assistance mechanisms...
Lessons Learned from Early Prototype Evaluations Evaluations in 2 workshops in 2011    Developers & pedagogical experts ...
Intuitive Means for Requirements Elicitation  Comic-like  C i lik annotations                 t ti                    Web ...
ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Current Prototype
ROLE Requirements Bazaar –Community-aware Requirements Prioritization                                                 Comm...
Useful Sources for Requirements Ranking User-to-Service Communication    CoP-aware usage statistics    Identification o...
ROLE Requirements Bazaar –Requirements Ranking Infrastructure                                      URA = User Rating Analy...
Integration of the Bazaar with external services
Lessons Learned Lack of common understanding and awareness about PLEs.    Developers/teachers/researchers acting as “sur...
Future Improvements E  Ease of contribution        f    t ib ti    Create templates that users can edit rather than forc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) Approach to Developing a Large-scale Personal Learning Environment Infrastructure

2,975

Published on

The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) Approach to Developing a Large-scale Personal Learning Environment Infrastructure
Effie Lai-Chong Law, Arunangsu Chatterjee, Dominik Renzel and Ralf Klamma
Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester, UK
Chair of Computer Science 5 - Information Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
EC-TEL 2012, Saarbrücken, Germany
September 21, 2012

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,975
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) Approach to Developing a Large-scale Personal Learning Environment Infrastructure

  1. 1. The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE)Approach to Developing a Large scale Personal Large-scale Learning Environment Infrastructure Effie Lai-Chong Law1, Arunangsu Chatterjee1, Dominik Renzel2 and Ralf Klamma2 1Department of Computer Science, University of Leicester, UK2Chair of Computer Science 5 - Information Systems, RWTH Aachen University, Germany EC-TEL 2012, Saarbrücken, Germany September 21, 2012 This work by the above authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. © www.role-project.eu
  2. 2. Personal Learning Environments (PLE)“a pedagogy-driven infrastructure that facilitates learners to integrate distributed contents services tools and contacts contents, services, based on personal goals and preferences, thereby enabling them to control their own learning and to connect different g learning contexts with the support of communities”
  3. 3. Motivation I know which tools my Which tools should I learners would need need... develop to create But I can‘t develop! most impact?
  4. 4. Motivation Users (many)  high potential to elicit requirements from domain knowledge [Hipp86]  usually not acquainted with formal specs developer tools & tech jargon specs,  need intuitive means for stating community-specific requirements  dependent on developers realizing their requirements Developers (few)  often not acquainted with domain knowledge and community jargon  use formal specs tools & jargon for reasons of effectiveness & efficiency specs,  used to integration between development tools  interested in requirements prioritization to maximize outcome Needed: model & software to support negotiation process  ROLE Social Requirements Engineering (SRE)  ROLE Requirements Bazaar
  5. 5. Theoretical Premises Transcriptivity Theory (Jäger, 2002) describing the operational semantics ATLAS (Architecture for Transcription, Localization, and Addressing Systems) - , scalable and interoperable repositories on top of databases support communities by web service technologies (Jarke and Klamma, 2006) Communities of Practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) Actor-network-theory (ANT) (Latour 1999)Details available via ROLE website > Results > Deliverables > Wp1deliverables
  6. 6. The ROLE SRE Approach – Support for the Long Tail  No Mainstream Web 2.0 RE!  “O “Overall T N“ naive approach ll Top-N“: i h  Needs of specialized CoPs neglected  I Innovation Killer ( l ti Kill (clones only) l )  Rather Long-Tail RE  “Community-Aware Top-N“  Special support for niche CoPs  High specialization, but high innovation
  7. 7. ROLE Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) – i* SR
  8. 8. ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Required Features
  9. 9. ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Initial Mockup
  10. 10. ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Early Prototypes Quantitative assistance mechanisms during negotiation Hybrid ranking mechanism Web-based requirements elicitation form Requirements review
  11. 11. Lessons Learned from Early Prototype Evaluations Evaluations in 2 workshops in 2011  Developers & pedagogical experts (N~20)  Early-stage TEL researchers (N~20) Issues Identified  Culture & language diversity  Lack of common understanding about PLEs  Inadequate communication I d t i ti  Distinction between infrastructure and widgets requirements  Lurking Resolutions Proposed  Documentation for improving understanding of PLE  Easy-to-use templates for requirements elicitation  Mandatory voting  Prioritisation model
  12. 12. Intuitive Means for Requirements Elicitation Comic-like C i lik annotations t ti Web 2.0 feedback tools:on screenshots/Storytelling  uservoice.com  getsatisfaction.com
  13. 13. ROLE Requirements Bazaar – Current Prototype
  14. 14. ROLE Requirements Bazaar –Community-aware Requirements Prioritization Community-dependent requirements ranking lists Factors influencing requirements ranking User-controlled weighting of ranking factors
  15. 15. Useful Sources for Requirements Ranking User-to-Service Communication  CoP-aware usage statistics  Identification of successful CoP services  Identification of CoP service usage patterns User to User Communication User-to-User  CoP-aware Social Network Analysis  Identification of influential CoP members de ca o o ue a Co e be s  Identification of CoP member interaction patterns +
  16. 16. ROLE Requirements Bazaar –Requirements Ranking Infrastructure URA = User Rating Analysis (baseline) UMA = User Monitoring Analysis
  17. 17. Integration of the Bazaar with external services
  18. 18. Lessons Learned Lack of common understanding and awareness about PLEs.  Developers/teachers/researchers acting as “surrogate customer” which is a potential problem Inadequate communication among “end-users” and developers around proposed requirements Cultural diversity and language barrier – Chinese, German and English View Separation important as demonstrated earlier  Expose relevant requirements as per users context  Ensure easily configurable views Devise mechanism to counter ‘Cold Start’ problems  Mandatory voting  Reward mechanism in terms of visible reputation scores or badges
  19. 19. Future Improvements E Ease of contribution f t ib ti  Create templates that users can edit rather than forcing them to start from scratch  Allow users to enter requirements in their preferred language  Integrate with development infrastructure (e.g JIRA) for enhanced traceability t bilit Prioritisation model  Attempt of extract rationales behind ratings  Utilise SNA and Monitoring data to assist decision support via a RE dashboard Requirements dashboard  Users able to view their own activity  View community activity
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×