Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 2011
DOI: 10.1145/1953163.1953207
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Teaching requirements engineering to undergraduate students

Abstract: Requirements engineering, an integral part of the life of a software engineer, often receives little or no attention in the education of a computer science student. We report on our experiences in constructing an innovative curriculum that utilizes a three tier model of learning that provides students with hands-on experience on the various facets of requirements elicitation and management. This curriculum can be integrated into an existing course on software engineering, software requirements or the senior ca… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Without a proper understanding of customer requirements, the likelihood of project failure increases [6]. In addition, customers and users often do not know exactly what they want.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Without a proper understanding of customer requirements, the likelihood of project failure increases [6]. In addition, customers and users often do not know exactly what they want.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Establishing and maintaining relationships to ensure a healthy supply of such projects can be difficult and in the absence of systematic institutional support (e.g., office of Service Learning), faculty often must be "courageous" [1]. On the other hand, the key characteristics of "realistic project" that motivate students are not the demanding "relationships"; rather, the key characteristics are the actual clients and "real-world" problems [6,7,8]. With these observations, instead of looking externally outside the university, many educators search internally for opportunities for collaboration, and design classes with less logistically demanding projects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another relevant aspect pointed out by Mohan and Chenoweth [5] about the RE teaching curriculum was the importance of inserting the students in projects jointly with industry companies, based in scenarios that could evidence better where and how the techniques learned in the first part of the course should be applied. This experience resulted in 33 out of 36 projects being successful, and this success was accredited to the demonstration of how the theory should be applied and why it works, instead of using "toy" projects (i.e., without a real client, only for practicing the theory in class).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such a simulation does not provide a complete immersion in the RE scenario, due to its underlying limitations [4]. Some elements that constitute the real scenarios are difficult to explore or reproduce, such as uncertainties of requirements suppliers as to what should be developed, conflicting requirements, behavioral traits, among other technical and non-technical aspects [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, this gives them the experience of how prototypes and client feedback translate into the finished product. This was also observed by Mohan and Chenoweth 9 : it is important that students "carry their requirements projects forward into design and development, sufficiently that they can see the importance of the time spent learning to do requirements" 9 . Nevertheless, it is important to note that student teams spend the larger part of the semester (about 70%) interacting with the client, building mockup/prototype(s) and obtaining client feedback, which they then use to create their SRS (specific tasks and deliverables are discussed in the next paragraphs).…”
Section: Course Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 59%