Can Role-Based Learning Transform How We Teach Requirement Elicitation?

In 2010, I learned a powerful teaching lesson — not from a conference, journal article, or workshop — but from my daughter’s first day at school.

Her very first classroom activity was simple: “sellam gedara.”
Children were assigned roles — mother, father, daughter — and asked to interact within those roles.

It looked like play.

But it wasn’t just play.

It was structured role-based learning.

That moment stayed with me.

Years later, I found myself asking:

If role-play is powerful enough to shape social learning in children,
why aren’t we using it more intentionally in higher education?

---

The Challenge: Teaching Requirement Elicitation

I teach Data Warehousing, and one of the most difficult topics for students is Requirement Elicitation.

On paper, it looks straightforward:

• Identify stakeholders

• Gather requirements

• Document them

• Validate

But in reality?

It’s messy.

It involves:

• Conflicting priorities

• Miscommunication

• Negotiation

• Role tension

• Ambiguity

And none of that can be fully understood through slides alone.

So I decided to experiment.

---

The Experiment: Role-Based Learning in Action

I redesigned the session around structured role simulation.

The Setup

• 40 students

• Divided into 8 groups

• Each group received a different business scenario

• Roles assigned within each group:

  • Client

  • Business Analyst (BA)

  • Project Manager (PM)

  • Developer (DEV)

  • Quality Assurance (QA)

The PM was responsible for leadership and coordinating meetings.

But here’s where it became interesting.

---

The Twist: Dual-Level Interaction

This was not just a simple role-play.

Phase 1: Expert Meetings

All students holding the same role met together.
All PMs discussed leadership strategy.
All BAs discussed elicitation techniques.
All Developers discussed feasibility concerns.

They aligned their professional perspective first.

Phase 2: Team Elicitation

Students returned to their project groups and conducted requirement meetings.

After an hour, they regrouped again by role to reflect:

• What challenges are emerging?

• What conflicts are surfacing?

• What adjustments are needed?

This cycle repeated multiple times.

---

The Deliverables

After three intensive hours, each group submitted:

• Requirement Document

• Meeting Minutes

• Delivery Plan

• Timeline

More importantly, they experienced:

• Stakeholder tension

• Negotiation pressure

• Time constraints

• Communication breakdowns

In short they experienced reality.

---

A Deliberate Decision: Stepping Back

I made a conscious decision not to intervene directly during the session.

Why?

Because when lecturers stand at the center, students often perform for the lecturer.

I wanted them to perform for the problem.

Four junior staff members observed at different levels, but the learning space belonged to the students.

---

Was It Perfect?

No.

Was it powerful?

Absolutely.

An anonymous survey at the end revealed:

• 38 out of 40 students expressed strong positive feedback

• Observers noted higher engagement

• Students demonstrated improved negotiation and ownership

• Discussions became deeper and more authentic

Most importantly — the classroom energy changed.

Students were no longer passive recipients of theory.
They were professionals inside a simulated project environment.

---

What I Learned

Role-Based Learning:

• Increases cognitive engagement

• Strengthens procedural understanding

• Improves collaboration skills

• Makes abstract concepts tangible

It also introduces productive discomfort and that discomfort creates growth.

---

Why This Matters

Today’s graduates do not work in isolated roles.
They operate within cross-functional teams.

If we expect industry-ready professionals,
our classrooms must simulate industry complexity.

Slides cannot replicate stakeholder conflict.

Role interaction can.

---

A Small Pedagogical Risk

This was not a perfect model.
It was an experiment.

But innovation in teaching rarely begins with certainty.
It begins with thoughtful risk.

And sometimes, the most meaningful transformations in education start with something as simple as children playing “sellam gedara.”

---

I am currently exploring more structured research on role-based peer interaction and measurable learning outcomes in computing education.

If you are experimenting with active learning strategies in higher education, I would love to hear your experiences.

Let’s reimagine the classroom together.

Vs of Data

 

Flipped Classroom: Reclaiming the Lecture Hall Through Practice and Experience

 For many years, my classroom experience—both as a student and as an educator—reflected a familiar pattern in higher education. Students entered lecture halls, listened quietly, took notes, and left once the lecture ended. Questions were rare, discussion was limited, and learning largely remained a passive activity.

Over time, this began to feel deeply unsatisfying. Students were present, but not necessarily engaged. The lecture hall functioned more as a space for information delivery than for learning.

Why I Decided to Change the Model

I wanted to break away from this pattern, but the question was how. The opportunity came when I was introduced to the concept of the flipped classroom. What initially seemed like a simple reversal of teaching order turned out to be a fundamental shift in how students interact with content, peers, and the classroom itself.

Instead of using classroom time to explain theories, the flipped model emphasizes preparation before class and active engagement during class. I decided to adopt this approach in a senior-level computing module, fully aware that it would require significant effort and experimentation.

How the Flipped Classroom Was Implemented

Each week, I created and shared short video lectures and carefully selected readings through the learning management system. Producing these materials was not easy—it was time-consuming and intellectually demanding—but it allowed students to engage with the content at their own pace.

Students were expected to review these resources before coming to class. Classroom time was then redesigned around problem-solving, discussion, and collaborative activities rather than traditional lecturing.

What Changed in Student Behavior

One of the most striking outcomes was a visible change in student behavior.

Students who previously arrived late began coming to class early—sometimes 20 to 30 minutes in advance—to review materials and prepare for discussions. Instead of passively waiting for the lecture to begin, they came with questions, opinions, and ideas.

Classes typically started with a short formative question based on the pre-class materials. Students evaluated each other’s responses and then moved into group discussions. The quality of interaction improved noticeably. Students spoke more, questioned assumptions, and explained concepts to one another.

Importantly, the use of tools such as AI-based assistants, online documentation, and external resources was not restricted. These tools became part of the learning process rather than something to be avoided. The focus shifted from “getting the right answer” to understanding why an answer works.

The Role of the Lecturer

My role in the classroom changed significantly. Instead of spending most of the session explaining content, I spent time listening, asking probing questions, and guiding discussions. This made student thinking more visible and allowed misconceptions to be addressed immediately.

The classroom became a shared intellectual space rather than a one-directional delivery channel.

Challenges and Reflections

This approach is not without challenges. Preparing high-quality pre-class materials requires sustained effort, and not all students adapt immediately to increased responsibility for their own learning. The physical layout of traditional classrooms—fixed rows and rigid seating—also limits interaction and collaboration.

However, even within these constraints, the benefits were clear. Engagement increased, attendance became more meaningful, and learning felt deeper and more authentic.

An Ongoing Process

I do not view the flipped classroom as a final or perfect solution. It is an evolving practice that must be continuously refined based on student feedback, learning outcomes, and contextual constraints.

Each semester provides new insights into what works, what does not, and what can be improved. That iterative process is, in many ways, the most valuable part of the experience.

Concluding Thoughts

The flipped classroom transformed not only how my students learned, but also how I approached teaching. It challenged long-standing assumptions about lectures, authority, and classroom control.

If our goal in higher education is to cultivate critical thinking, collaboration, and independent learners, then reclaiming classroom time for active learning is essential. The flipped classroom offers one practical pathway toward that goal.

I strongly believe that the most meaningful improvements in teaching come from reflecting on practice, observing student behavior, and being willing to change—even when it is uncomfortable.

Vs of Data