Complete thesis - Murdoch University

in a domain may be attained through the right set of instructional stimuli. Response to astimulus is predictable and reliable – all the teacher requires is to identify the subskills tobe mastered so that the intended behaviour is learned and to select the stimuli and strategyfor its presentation that builds each subskill (Winn and Snyder, 1996). This style of explicitteaching is often based on direct instruction, asystematic method for presenting material in small steps, pausing to check forstudent understanding and eliciting active and successful participation from allstudents(Rosenshine, 1986, p 60).Classified as a ‘transmission’ model of communication, direct instruction is well groundedin behaviourist theory. This approach to learning as a progression to expertise through alearning ‘chain’ based on task analysis, strategy selection, try-out and repetition has beenregarded as useful in well-structured domains. Daily review, presenting new material, guidedpractice, correction and feedback, independent practice, weekly and monthly reviews areelements that are mirrored in scientific and engineering methodologies, with their focus onprocess and repeatability.The evaluation of relevant BoKs and model curricula (see Chapter 2 for a summary of these)has revealed a significant mismatch between the description of the nature of RE and theskills and knowledge advocated by these models, with a strong tendency towards technicalknowledge within prescribed curricula.The training of Requirements Engineers is based on traditional learning models and are basedlargely on training in notations and prescribed processes. However, despite the engineeringand manufacturing metaphors that drive the view that software development is a smoothtransformation (of input to output), it is dominated by human cognition: software developmentis an exploratory and self-correcting dialogue (Bach, 1999). RE requires insight andcreativity. This discrepancy between theory and practice (Argyris and Schön, 1974; Glass,1995) is supported in the literature on expert behaviour (Visser, 1990; Robillard, 1999). Expertsdo not do in practice what they say the do (eg follow a methodology) because their ownplans are cognitively more cost effective and flexible, allowing for creativity and opportunism.This conflict between ‘approved’ and actual behaviour in RE practice is at the root of a majordilemma in RE education, and further exacerbates the challenge of educating RequirementsEngineers. These differing perspectives have major influence on the underlying knowledgestructures, skills (physical and cognitive) and techniques the RE has recourse to. The prescribedsyllabus of formal courses, with a focus on a solid foundation of knowledge to guide148