Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching requirements: Can a short lecture make a real difference?

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the influence that an educational intervention has on students generating requirements for a design task. An experiment was performed in a fourth-year mechanical engineering design course by giving the participants a design problem from which they had to generate a list of requirements. A lecture on requirements was given and then the students were given a second problem. The two problems were tested for similarity. The data was evaluated using ideation metrics of variety, novelty, and quantity adapted to this study. Variety was assessed using eighteen categories to classify each requirement. Novelty was evaluated on the level of uniqueness of the requirement against the complete set generated, based on both syntax and semantic filtering. Findings suggest that the lecture had a positive impact on the students in increasing the variety of the requirement. All novel requirements belonged to the activity performed after lecture. Finally, the quantity of the requirements generated after the lecture were found to be statistically significantly higher. It is shown through a second study that the students before the lecture performed similarly to practicing engineers with three or more years of experience. This suggests that using undergraduate students in the final year of their program may be adequate as surrogates for engineering practitioners for requirement identification studies. This is an important methodological contribution for the engineering design research community to justify the use of students as participants in experimental studies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ABET: http://www.abet.org. (accessed 2020.08.13).

  2. http://lsa.colorado.edu/

References

  • Abe, T., & Starr, P. (2003). Teaching the writing and role of specifications via a structured teardown process. Design Studies, 24, 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00037-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akçura, M. T., & Altınkemer, K. (2010). Digital bundling. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 8, 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-009-0117-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, H. J., Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (1990). Introduction to the practice of statistics. Technometrics, 32, 347. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auriol, G., Baron, C., & Fourniols, J. Y. (2008). Teaching requirements skills within the context of a physical engineering project. In Requirements engineering education and training, 2008 (pp. 6–11). REET’08. IEEE.

  • Avşar, A. Z., Valencia-Romero, A., & Grogan, P. T. (2019). The effects of locus of control and big five personality traits on collaborative engineering design tasks with negotiation. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (p. V007T06A031). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

  • Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 7, 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beus-Dukic, L., & Alexander, I. (2008). Learning how to discover requirements. In Requirements engineering education and training, 2008 (pp. 12–14). REET’08. IEEE.

  • Brown, D. C. (2014). Computational design creativity evaluation. In J. S. Gero & S. Hanna (Eds.), Design computing and cognition’14 (pp. 207–224). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callele, D., & Makaroff, D. (2006). Teaching requirements engineering to an unsuspecting audience. ACM SIGCSE Bull, 38, 433–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, P., Isaksson, O., Maier, A., & Summers, J. (2022). Sampling in design research: Eight key considerations. Design Studies, 78, 101077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charyton, C., Ivcevic, Z., Plucker, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity assessment in higher education. In Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 78–96). IGI Global.

  • Chen, Z. Y., Yao, S., Lin, J. Q., & Zeng, Y. (2007). Formalisation of product requirements: From natural language descriptions to formal specifications. International Journal of Manufacturing Research, 2, 362–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chyung, Y. S., Moll, A. J., & Berg, S. A. (2010). The role of intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy, and E-learning practice in engineering education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 10, 22–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (2019). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2013). Engineering design (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. L., & Little, P. (2004). Engineering design: A project-based introduction. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elena, M. V., & Summers, J. D. (2019). Requirement generation: Lecture intervention impact on variety and novelty. In ASME 2019 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (p. V003T04A011). American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  • Elena, M. V. (2019). Understanding requirement generation: studies on interventions and comparison between novices and practitioners. Clemson: Clemson University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elena, M. V., Patel, A., & Summers, J. D. (2020). Designing design prompts: A systematic approach to support engineering design research. J Des Res, 18, 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evangelopoulos, N. E. (2013). Latent semantic analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 683–692.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fadel, G. (2000). Multi-national around the clock collaborative senior design project. In ASME curriculum innovations award (pp. 1–4). ASME.

  • Foong, C. C., Liew, P. Y., & Lye, A. J. (2022). Changes in motivation and its relationship with academic performance among first-year chemical engineering students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 38, 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotel, O., Kulkarni, V., Say, M., et al. (2009). Distributing responsibilities to engineer better requirements: Leveraging knowledge and perspectives for students to learn a key skill. In 2009 fourth international workshop on requirements engineering education and training (REET) (pp. 28–37). IEEE.

  • Gu, X., Ritter, S. M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2023). Online creativity training: Examining the effectiveness of a comprehensive training approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudur, R. R. (2023). Teaching empathetic design through the pedagogy of discomfort. In Proceedings of the international conference on engineering and product design education, E&PDE 2023.

  • Haskins, C., & Forsberg, K. (2011). Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities. Incose.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, K. C., Jablokow, K. W., & McKilligan, S., et al. (2016). Evaluating the impacts on different interventions on quality in concept generation. In American society of engineering education (pp. 1–17).

  • Hyman, B. (1998). Fundamentals of engineering design. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, S., Shankar, P., & Summers, J. D. (2012a). Requirements in engineering design: what are we teaching. In: Horvath, I. (Ed.), Tools and methods for competitive engineering (TMCE 2012) (p. No--38). Karlsruhe, Germany.

  • Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2014). Impact of requirements elicitation activity on idea generation: A designer study. In ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  • Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Requirements evolution: Understanding the type of changes in the requirement document of novice designers. In ICoRD’15—research into design across boundaries (Vol. 2, pp. 471–481). Springer.

  • Joshi, S., Summers, J. D., & Mocko, G. M. (2012b). Requirements in engineering design: What are we teaching? Proceedings of the TMCE, 2012, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalu, I., & Ali, A. N. (2004). Classroom interaction patterns, teacher and student characteristics and students’ learning outcomes in physics. Journal of Classroom Interaction 24–31.

  • Kirjavainen, S., & Celik, S. (2023). Envrionmental considerations in engineering: systemic differences between experts and novices. In International conference on engineering design (pp. 1655–1664). Cambridge University Press.

  • Koen, B. V. (1994). Toward a strategy for teaching engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 83, 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, S. L., & Shu, L. H. (2017). Individual differences in tendency for design fixation. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition ’16 (pp. 321–338). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W., & Shankararaman, V. (1999). Requirements change: A dissection of management issues. In EUROMICRO Conference, 1999. Proceedings. 25th. IEEE (pp. 244–251).

  • Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, M. M., & Belady, L. A. (1985). Program evolution: Processes of software change. Academic Press Professional Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D., Rayport, J. F., & Courtney, H., et al (1997). Spark innovation through empathetic design. Harvard Business Review 102–113.

  • Linnerud, B., & Mocko, G. M. (2013). Factors that effect motivation and performance on innovative design projects. In ASME 2013 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (p. V001T04A019). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

  • López-Fernández, D., Ezquerro, J. M., Rodríguez, J., et al. (2019). Motivational impact of active learning methods in aerospace engineering students. Acta Astronautica, 165, 344–354.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Masi, B. A. (2003). The impact of faculty-mentored versus web-guided engineering design experience on freshman skills. In American society for engineering education (pp. 1–8).

  • McKoy, F. L., Vargas-Hernández, N., Summers, J. D., & Shah, J. J. (2001). Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea generation. In Proceedings of the ASME design theory and methodology conference.

  • Morkos, B., Joshi, S., Summers, J. D., & Mocko, G. G. M. (2010). Requirements and data content evaluation of industry in-house data management system. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp. DETC2010-28548). ASME, Montreal, Canada.

  • Morkos, B., & Summers, J. D. (2010). Requirement change propagation prediction approach: results from an industry case study. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp. 111–121).

  • Morkos, B., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2019). Investigating the impact of requirements elicitation and evolution on course performance in a pre-capstone design course. Journal of Engineering Design, 30, 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A. R., Patel, A. R., & Summers, J. D. (2022). Formative and summative assessment in senior capstone design courses. In Capstone design conference (p. No. 16). Richardson, TX.

  • Nelson, B. A., Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., & Yen, J. (2009). Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 30, 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D., & Draper, S. (1986). User centered systems design.

  • Ohland, M. W., & Summers, J. D. (2007). Teaching design using multiple hierarchical engineering education models. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22, 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (1998). Product evolution: A reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design, 10, 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product design (1st ed.). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Blessing, L., et al. (2013). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design (3rd ed.). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, A., Elena, M. V., & Summers, J. D. (2019). A systematic approach to evaluating design prompts in supporting experimental design research. In ICED19: 22nd international conference on engineering design (p. no. 555). The Design Society.

  • Patel, A., & Summers, J. D. (2021). Exploring the effects of individual differences in function structure modeling behaviors. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (p. V006T06A036). American Society of Mechanical Engineers

  • Peeters, J., Verhaegen, P. A., Vandevenne, D., & Duflou, J. R. (2010). Refined metrics for measuring novelty in ideation. IDMME Virtual Concept Res Interact Des Oct 20–22.

  • Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renu, R. S., & Mocko, G. (2016). Computing similarity of text-based assembly processes for knowledge retrieval and reuse. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 39, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C. P., Gweon, G., Arguello, J., et al. (2007). Towards an interactive assessment framework for engineering design learning. In Volume 3: 19th international conference on design theory and methodology; 1st international conference on micro- and nanosystems; and 9th international conference on advanced vehicle tire technologies, Parts A and B (pp. 45–54). ASME.

  • Saville, B. K., Cox, T., O’Brien, S., & Vanderveldt, A. (2011). Interteaching: The impact of lectures on student performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 937–941.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schimpf, C., & Olewnik, A. (2022). Surfacing students design problem understanding through system mapping: A novice-expert comparison. In 2022 ASEE annual conference & exposition.

  • Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernández, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24, 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shankar, P., Morkos, B., & Summers, J. D. (2012). Predicting requirement change propagation using higher order design structure matrices: An industry case study. Research in Engineering Design, 23, 905–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N., Ortiz, J., Patel, A., et al. (2021). Analysis of the impact of requirement-sketch sequencing on requirement generation in conceptual design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stidham, H., Flynn, M., Summers, J. D., & Shuffler, M. (2018). Understanding team personality evolution in student engineering design teams using the five factor model. In ASME 2018 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  • Summers, J. D., Joshi, S., & Morkos, B. (2014). Requirements evolution: Relating functional and non-functional requirement change on student project success. In ASME 2014 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

  • Teegavarapu, S., Summers, J. D., & Mocko, G. M. (2008). Case study method for design research: A justification. In International design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (pp. 495–503). ASME.

  • Telenko, C., Camburn, B., Hölttä-Otto, K., et al (2014). Designettes: New approaches to multidisciplinary engineering design education. In Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference.

  • Teng, J., Wang, X., Lu, K., et al. (2022). Domain-specific and domain-general creativity differences between expert and novice designers. Creativity Research Journal, 34, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thimmaiah, S., Phelan, K., & Summers, J. D. (2017). An experimental study on the influence that failure number, specialization, and controls have on confidence in predicting system failures. Journal of Mechanical Design, 139, 011102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Seale, L. E. J., Kanagalingam, S., Kirkman-Brown, J. C., et al. (2023). Teaching design for additive manufacturing: Efficacy of and engagement with lecture and laboratory approaches. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33, 585–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, H. H. (2020). Drop the chalk. Science (80-), 367, 345.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C., & Agyemang, M. (2017). Underlying design motivations in design methods and outcomes. In International conference on engineering design (pp. 469–478).

  • Ullman, D. G. (2018). The mechanical design process (6th ed.). David Ullman LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K., & Eppinger, S. D. (2008). Product design and development (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzuegbunam, F. O., Ibem, E. O., & Ezezue, A. M. (2023). Interaction patterns in architecture studios and lecture rooms in the Nigerian university context: implications for gender mainstreaming in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 785, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viera, A., & Garrett, J. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37, 360–363.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wentzky, C., & Summers, J. D. (2020). Individual differences in describing levels of automation. In Volume 6: 25th design for manufacturing and the life cycle conference (DFMLC) (pp. 1–11). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

  • Wetmore, W. R., III., Summers, J. D., & Greenstein, J. S. (2010). Experimental study of influence of group familiarity and information sharing on design review effectiveness. Journal of Engineering Design, 21, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worinkeng, E., Summers, J. D., Joshi, S. (2013). Can a pre-sketching activity improve idea generation? In Smart product engineering (pp. 583–592). Springer.

  • Worinkeng, E., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. D. (2015). An experimental study: Analyzing requirement type influence on novelty and variety of generated solutions. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–55). American Psychological Association.

  • Zhu, M., Bao, D., Yu, Y., et al. (2022). Differences in thinking flexibility between novices and experts based on eye tracking. PLoS ONE, 17, e0269363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the students of Clemson University for participating in this activity. We would also like to thank Apurva Patel, Sean Fry, and Nicholas Spivey for helping in monitoring the experiment in class.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deparment of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634-0921, USA

    Maria Vittoria Elena

  2. Deparment of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Joshua D. Summers

Authors
  1. Maria Vittoria Elena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua D. Summers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua D. Summers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no competing interests or funding that is associated with this scholarly work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elena, M.V., Summers, J.D. Teaching requirements: Can a short lecture make a real difference?. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09885-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09885-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation