Advertisement

Deconstructing the Tower of Babel: a design method to improve empathy and teamwork competences of informatics students

  • Teresa Blanco
  • Ignacio López-Forniés
  • Francisco Javier Zarazaga-Soria
Article

Abstract

The competence-based education recently launched in Spanish universities presents a set of abilities and skills that are difficult to teach to students in higher and more technologically-oriented grades. In this paper, a teaching intervention that is based on design methodologies is proposed, to upgrade the competitive capacities of computer engineering students. In particular, this intervention targets those aspects relating to working in multidisciplinary teams and to defining requirements based on the user’s empathy and knowledge. The main idea inspiring this technique is that the underlying challenge is a communication problem. As Brooks (1995) states in his book The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, even a project having all of the prerequisites for success (a clear mission, manpower, materials, time and adequate technology) could fail as a Tower of Babel. The proposed technique through mixed methods has been evaluated with students enrolled in different courses, confirming the repeatability and validity of this method from quantitative measurement, from observation of the results, and from ascertaining the value perceived by students and their attitudes.

Keywords

Design Creative thinking User empathy Requirements definition Teamwork Interdisciplinary Shared understanding Human computer interaction Collaborative learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Government (Project TIN2012-37826-C02-01).

References

  1. Acuña, S. T., Castro, J. W., & Juristo, N. (2012). A HCI technique for improving requirements elicitation. Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1357–1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antunes, P., Xiao, L., & Pino, J. A. (2014). Assessing the impact of educational differences in HCI design practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(3), 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anzai, Y., & Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review, 86(2), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aoyama, M. (2005). Persona-and-scenario based requirements engineering for software embedded in digital consumer products. In Requirements engineering, proceedings. 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering (pp. 85–94). IEEE.Google Scholar
  5. Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal, 9(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batchelor, R., & Bobrowicz, A. (2014). Empathic and ethical design of technology. In C. Stephanidis & M. Antona (Eds.), Universal access in humancomputer interaction: Design and development methods for universal access (pp. 3–10). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanco, E., Pourroy, F., & Arikoglu, S. (2014). Role of personas and scenarios in creating shared understanding of functional requirements: An empirical study. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition’12 (pp. 61–78). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Bologna Declaration. (1999). The European higher education area. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 19. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf.
  10. Borrego, M., Douglas, E. P., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1995). The mythical man-month, anniversary edition: Essays on software engineering. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  12. Chappell, C., Gonczi, A., & Hager, P. (1995). Competency-based education. In G. Foley (Ed.), Understanding adult education and training (pp. 175–187). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe. (1997). Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European Region. Lisbon, 11.IV.1997. Retrieved from http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/165.htm.
  14. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curricula, C. (2001). Computer Science, Final Report, The joint task force on computing curricula. In IEEE computer society and association for computing machinery, IEEE computer society. Retrieved from http://www.acm.org/education/education/education/curric_vols/cc2001.pdf.
  16. Da Silva, T. S., Martin, A., Maurer, F., & Silveira, M. S. (2011). User-centered design and agile methods: A systematic review. In AGILE Conference (pp. 77–86). doi:  10.1109/AGILE.2011.24.
  17. Daly, S. R., Adams, R. S., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Downing, C. G. (2001). Essential non-technical skills for teaming. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faily, S., & Fléchais, I. (2010). Barry is not the weakest link: Eliciting secure system requirements with personas. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference (pp. 124–132). British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  21. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Floyd, I. R., Cameron Jones, M., & Twidale, M. B. (2008). Resolving incommensurable debates: A preliminary identification of persona kinds, attributes, and characteristics. Artifact, 2(1), 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fowler, T. C. (1990). Value analysis in design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  24. Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426–430.Google Scholar
  26. Granollers, T., Oliva, M., García, R., & Gil, R. (2008). Project-based learning applied to a master in HCI. Magazine of Interaction Design & Architecture, 3, 59–66.Google Scholar
  27. Guðjónsdóttir, R. & Lindquist, S. (2008). Personas and scenarios: Design tool or a communication device? In Proceedings of COOP’, Carry Le Rouet, France, (pp. 165–176).Google Scholar
  28. Haikara, J. (2007). Usability in agile software development: extending the interaction design process with personas approach. In G. Concas, E. Damiani, M. Scotto & G. Succi (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (pp. 153–156). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klapwijk, R., & Van Doorn, F. (2015). Context mapping in primary design and technology education: a fruitful method to develop empathy for and insight in user needs. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies, 29(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lim, C. S. C. (2010). Designing inclusive ICT products for older users: taking into account the technology generation effect. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(2–3), 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. López, J. M., Manchado, E., Casas, R., López-Forniés, I., & Blanco-Bascuas, T. (2013). Professional competences acquisition through interdisciplinary projects. In M. P. Sánchez & M. L. Sein-Echaluce (Eds.), II international conference on learning, innovation and competitiveness-CINAIC (pp. 385–390). Madrid: Fundación General de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.Google Scholar
  33. Matthews, T., Judge, T., & Whittaker, S. (2012). How do designers and user experience professionals actually perceive and use personas? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1219–1228). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, G., & Williams, L. (2006). Personas: moving beyond role-based requirements engineering. Technical Reports (TR-2006-24). North Carolina: Microsoft and North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  36. Morris, J., Mueller, J., & Jones, M. (2010). Tomorrow´s elders with disabilities: What the wireless industry needs to know. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(2–3), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, D. (2015). The process of design squiggle central office of design. Retrieved from http://v2.centralstory.com/about/squiggle/.
  38. Nielsen, L. (2004). Engaging Personas and Narrative Scenarios, Vol. 17, PhD Series. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  39. Nielsen, L. (2007). How can Personas be useful for developers? Retrieved from http://personas.dk/?p=45.
  40. Nielsen, L. Personas. (2013). In M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human–computer interaction (2nd ed.). Aarhus: The Interaction Design Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Onarheim, B., & Friis-Olivarius, M. (2013). Applying the neuroscience of creativity to creativity training. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 656. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Openideo (2011). 7 tips on better brainstorming. Retrieved from https://openideo.com/blog/seven-tips-on-better-brainstorming.
  43. Platt, D. S. (2007). Why software sucks–and what you can do about it. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  44. Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on designing for user experiences (pp. 1–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  45. Randolph, G. (2004). Use-cases and personas: a case study in light-weight user interaction design for small development projects. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 7, 105–116.Google Scholar
  46. Razumnikova, O. M. (2013). Divergent versus convergent thinking. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 546–552). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(2), 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sorbonne Joint Declaration (1998). Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system. Paris, the Sorbonne. Retrieved from http://www.eees.es/pdf/Sorbona_EN.pdf.
  49. Stoll, J., McColgin, D., Gregory, M., Crow, V., & Edwards, W. K. (2008). Adapting personas for use in security visualization design. In J. R. Goodall, G. Conti & K.-L. Ma VizSEC 2007 (pp. 39–52). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tulsi, P. K., & Poonia, M. P. (2015). Expectations of industry from technical graduates: Implications for curriculum and instructional processes. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, Special Issue, 19–24. doi: 10.16920/ijerit/2015/v0i0/59339.
  51. Tuning Project (n.d.), Tuning methodology. In Tuning educational structures in europe. Retrieved from http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/tuning-methodology.html#outcomes.
  52. Wikipedia (2015). European credit transfer and accumulation system. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Credit_Transfer_and_Accumulation_System.
  53. Wilhelm, W. J., Logan, J., Smith, S. M., & Szul, L. F. (2002). Meeting the demand: Teaching “Soft” skills. Information analyses (070). Little Rock, Arkansas: Delta Pi Epsilon Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Winters, N., & Mor, Y. (2008). IDR: A participatory methodology for interdisciplinary design in technology enhanced learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 579–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wormald, P. W. (2011). Positioning industrial design students to operate at the ‘fuzzy front end’: Investigating a new arena of university design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 425–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Unizar (n.d). Official bachelor website from the University of Zaragoza. Retrieved from http://titulaciones.unizar.es/ing-informatica.
  57. Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aragon Institute of Engineering ResearchUniversidad de ZaragozaSaragossaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Design Engineering and ManufacturingUniversity of ZaragozaSaragossaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and Systems EngineeringUniversidad de ZaragozaSaragossaSpain

Personalised recommendations