Background
The proliferation of networked technologies that support human activities has made it difficult to conceive a world where learning is devoid of digital education. However, design weaknesses in developing digital programs have failed to account for stakeholder interests (Knowles, Bates and Hakannson, 2018). Similarly, they have made it difficult to achieve shared control of all learning processes, based on their relationship with the contribution that different stakeholders make in the learning process (Chang, Lim and Stolterman, 2008; Villalobos and Dewhurst, 2017). Consequently, Participatory Design (PD) has been introduced to bridge the gap between these varying needs (Bodker et al., 2012). The concept focuses on the involvement of all stakeholders in designing learning programs and is applicable when multiple interests underpin the success of educational activities (Vezzoli, 2020). This paper investigates conditions for implementing PD using the work of Bell and Davis (2016), who described its use in developing a digital reward system for high school students, as a case study.
Application
PD has been theorized by describing how information is organized, analyzed, disseminated, and used. Particularly, the concept shares a close relationship with cognitivism, which posits that learning transcends behavioral issues among students to include mental processes that support performance (Villalobos and Dewhurst, 2017). In this regard, PD helps to empower students by democratizing learning opportunities. However, it could be time-consuming because lengthy discussions characterize stakeholder engagements (Wallace et al., 2013). Nonetheless, PD has been applied in different education contexts with varying degrees of success. For example, mutual learning has emerged as a core issue in the implementation of its design agenda (Knowles, Bates and Hakannson, 2018). From this background, it has been used in the case study to integrate learners’ views by fostering mutual learning when developing the rewards program for high school students.
Critique
PD has many benefits to schools or educational institutions that use them. However, its application could be affected by a lack of empathy for students’ experiences, as seen in the works of Bell and Davis (2016). The need for technology to have a “human face” is mentioned in several texts, including those of Antle (2008), Nielsen (2002), Vezzoli (2020), Wright and McCarthy (2008), which suggest that ergonomics need to be empathetic to meet future learning needs. Creating a “human face” through PD could have a positive impact on learning, such as through the development of creative and innovative solutions for educational improvement (Chang, Lim and Stolterman, 2008; Villalobos and Dewhurst, 2017). This idea partly stems from Schon’s reflective model, which suggests that designers should understand the mechanical, chemical, and physical properties of learning and use them as a basis for improving performance (Schon, 1983). This statement outlines conditions where students, teachers, and parents can interact with one another and share ideas on how to improve the effectiveness of education technologies through PD.
Summary
The paper has demonstrated how PD supports a people-centered approach to enhance interactivity and productivity in the learning process. It has also highlighted the relationship between the concept and the cognitivism learning theory, which examines mental processes associated with student performance, as a basis for evaluating educational outcomes. Based on its ability to promote user empowerment and democratization advantages, collaboration is critical in enhancing key theoretical, design, and practical implications of PD. Recognizing this fact could help to nurture an environment where technology is responsive to learners’ needs by improving processes and procedures of design development.
Reference List
Antle, A. N. (2008) ‘Child-based personas: need, ability and experience’, Cognition Technology and Work, 10(3), pp. 155–166.
Bell, E. and Davis, K. (2016) Learning through participatory design: designing digital badges for and with teens. Web.
Chang, Y., Lim, Y. and Stolterman, E. (2008) ‘Personas: from theory to practices’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Lund, Sweden.
Knowles, B., Bates, O. and Hakannson, M. (2018) ‘This changes sustainable HCI’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, Quebec, 21–26.
Nielsen, L. (2002) From user to character – an investigation into user-descriptions in scenarios. Web.
Schon, D.A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic books.
Vezzoli, Y. (2020) ‘Exploring the design space for parent-child reading’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Villalobos, M. and Dewhurst, J. (2017) ‘Why post-cognitivism does not (necessarily) entail anti-computationalism’, Adaptive Behavior, 25(3), pp. 117–128.
Wallace, J. et al., (2013) A design-led inquiry into personhood in dementia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France.
Wright, P. and McCarthy, J. (2008) ‘Empathy and experience in HCI’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.