3.6 Specification
3.6.4 MoSCoW
To categorize the requirements on their priority a MoSCoW analysis can be done [74]. The analysis categorizes in four categories, namely the must have, should have, could have and won’t have [74]. In the following subsections the MoSCoW analysis of the stakeholder requirements is done.
Must have
• an intuitive design, the older teachers do not want to learn a new system, and the acceptability of an intuitive design is higher than of a tool with a steep learning curve.
• a way to categorize questions, the categorization helps the students think about what type of question they have. This helps formulate specific ques- tions and get a higher level of help.
• a question entry, where students type out there questions. Thinking about the question the students have before they can request help has several benefits. Firstly, the student does not request help without thinking about their problem themselves. Secondly, the question will be visible for other students. This helps other students formulate their questions, and it creates a sense of com- munity which can help students who are lagging ask questions someone else has asked before instead of giving up.
• visibility of the questions that other students asked about that category. By showing questions that were previously asked students who have a hard time formulating specific questions can see how other students ask questions and tag along to a specific question.
• a solution to the hand raising problem, students need to be able to continue to work while they are waiting for help. The prototype must solve the main problem.
• a fair system in the eyes of the student. Students mentioned in the focus group interview that they value a fair system. A fair system will be accepted better by this user group.
• give student the ability to tag along on a question of another student. This is important for students who have a hard time formulating specific questions. But this also gives the TAs the opportunity when several students have the same question at the same time to call those students to the front and help them simultaneously. This is more efficient than answering the same question
3.6. SPECIFICATION 73
over and over again. But it also keeps in mind that only students who are at the same question have get help, so students who are not there yet or are managing to solve the problem do not get discouraged by the explanation of the TA.
• mobility the TA wants to be able to walk around without dragging their laptop with them. TAs mentioned in the focus group interviews that this was an im- portant feature for them. This has to be included for the acceptability of the system by TAs.
• give the TAs and the teacher the ability to choose who they will help next. This in combination with the categories can improve the efficiency of help giving. When the supporting staff know what type of question is asked they can eval- uate if they are the most suitable person to help the students or ask another TA if they have more knowledge about the topic.
• the system must give the student the ability to check out of the queue if they do not need or want help anymore. This is a feature that the system already has. It helps clean up the queue.
Should have
• LTI integration with the LMS. The LTI integration increases the acceptability of the system for the university in general.
• Progress of the student, which assignments have they finished and where they are in comparison to the rest of the class. By keeping track of where the students are, the TAs can intervene sooner when someone is lagging. Further, the visualization of the students progress compared to the progress of others increases the sense of community.
• anonymity of the students. As was mentioned in 3.4.2 the discussion board section, students might be off put by the permanence and public visibility of their question and there ask less questions if the author of the question is posted with the question.
• sign off pop-up if the student has finished enough assignments. The observa- tion of the whiteboard course and the interview with the teacher of this course led to the insight that it is better when all the students need to sign off their questions during the tutorial to have the students request a sign off after every four questions. This reduces the amount of questions that have to be signed off at the end of the session. It also prevents that TAs are occupied for a long time with students who first make all the questions and then ask for a sign off.
• insight in what problems have occurred most during that tutorial. Insights in what type of questions were asked gives the possibility to improve the course manual, to alter lectures when a certain topic is deemed misunderstood, and gives the possibility to improve the course altogether for the coming year.
Could have
• provide insight in how much time students need per assignment. This might show what questions students find difficult.
• help students with debugging. TAs mentioned that debugging was a skill that students lacked. The system could give tips for debugging when students have a question about an error.
Won’t have
• give online the answer to the questions students have. This feature asks too much time from the TAs and is at the expense of the face to face time students get with the TAs.
• give the TAs extra work outside the tutorials. TAs are students themselves, working as a TA is a part time job, so the system should not make the TAs work outside of the tutorials.
• students uploading their code for code reviewing. TAs mentioned that they did not want to be code reviewers.