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

  • Effie Lai-Chong Law
  • Arunangsu Chatterjee
  • Dominik Renzel
  • Ralf Klamma
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7563)


In this paper we reflect on the limitations of applying traditional requirements engineering approaches to the development of a large-scale PLE infrastructure, which is precisely the aim of a technology-enhanced learning project called ROLE. The Social Requirements Engineering (SRE) approach has been proposed as an appropriate alternative. The SRE process is grounded in an agent- and goal-oriented conceptual model. The implementation of SRE prototypes was structured with a five-staged requirement lifecycle: elicitation, negotiation, selection, development and feedback. We report results of the preliminary evaluation of the prototypes and lessons learnt. Several relevant issues have been identified, including the lack of a consensual understanding of key concepts, lurking within Community of Practices (CoP), and cultural differences. Possible solutions are proposed to address the issues, including templates, mandatory voting and prioritisation model.


Social requirements engineering Personal learning environments Communities of practice Web 2.0 Prioritization model Long tail Voting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: A roadmap. In: Proc. ICSE 2000 - Future of Software Engineering Track, pp. 35–46 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holtzblatt, H., Beyer, H.R.: Requirements gathering: the human factor. Communications of the ACM 38(5), 31–32 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung, L., Leite, J.: On Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S. (eds.) Mylopoulos Festschrift. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nuseibeh, B., Haley, C.B., Foster, C.: Securing the Skies: In Requirements We Trust. IEEE Computer 42(9), 64–72 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olivier, B., Liber, O.: Lifelong learning: The need for portable Personal Learning Environments and supporting interoperability standards,
  6. 6.
    Wild, F., Mödritscher, F., Sigurdason, S.: Designing for Change: Mashup Personal Learning Environments. eLearning Papers 9,
  7. 7.
    Liber, O., Johnson, M.: Special Issue on Personal Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments 16, 1 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiedler, S., Väljataga, T.: Personal learning environments: concept or technology? International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments 2(4), 1–11 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Attwell, G.: The Personal Learning Environments – the future of eLearning? E-Learning Papers 1, 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klamma, R., Jarke, Hannemann, M.A., Renzel, D.: Der Bazar der Anforderungen – Open Innovation in emergenten Communities. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wenger, E.: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson, C.: The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. Hyperion (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jäger, J.: Transkriptivität - Zur medialen Logik der kulturellen Semantik. In: Jäger, L., Stanitzek, G. (eds.) Transkribieren - Medien/Lektüre, Fink, München, pp. 19–41 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarke, M., Klamma, R.: Reflective Community Information Systems. In: ManoIopoulous, Y., Filipe, J., Constantopoulous, P., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2006. LNBIP, vol. 3, pp. 17–28. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duguid, P.: The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice. Information Society 21(2), 109–118 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Østerlund, C., Carlile, P.: How practice matters: A relational view of knowledge sharing. In: Huysman, M., Wenger, E., Wulf, V. (eds.) Communities and Technologies - Proceedings of the First International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 2003), pp. 1–22. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klamma, R., Spaniol, M., Denev, D.: PALADIN: A Pattern Based Approach to Knowledge Discovery in Digital Social Networks. In: Tochtermann, K., Maurer, H. (eds.) Proceedings of I-KNOW 2006, 6th International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz, Austria, pp. 457–464 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In: Lin, P.M.N. (ed.) Social Structure and Network Analysis, pp. 105–130. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Latour, B.: On recalling ANT. In: Law, J., Hassard, J. (eds.) Actor-Network Theory and After, Oxford, pp. 15–25 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yu, E.: Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-Phase Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. on Requirements Engineering (RE 1997), Washington D.C., USA, January 6-8, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bryl, V., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Designing socio-technical systems: from stake-holder goals to social networks. Requirements Engineering 14(1), 47–70 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Al-Rawas, A., Easterbrook, S.M.: A Field Study into the Communications Problems in Requirements Engineering. In: Proceedings, Conference on Professional Awareness in Software Engineering (PACE 1996), London (February 1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nuseibeh, B.A., Easterbrook, S.M.: Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In: Finkelstein, A.C.W. (ed.) The Future of Software Engineering (Companion volume to the Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2000). IEEE Computer Society Press (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Moitra, D.: Global software development. IEEE Software 18, 16–20 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen. J.: Participatin inequality: Encouraing more users to contribute,
  27. 27.
    Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D.: The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior 20, 201–223 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schein, A., Popescul, A., Ungar, L., Pennock, D.: Methods and Metrics for Cold-Start Recommendations. In: Proc. of the 25th ACM SIGIR Conference, pp. 253–260 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Effie Lai-Chong Law
    • 1
  • Arunangsu Chatterjee
    • 1
  • Dominik Renzel
    • 2
  • Ralf Klamma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LeicesterUK
  2. 2.Computer Science 5 - Information SystemsRWTH Aachen UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations