=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_23
|storemode=property
|title=Application of Participatory Design in Designing Infrastructures for Learning in resource
limiting environments
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_23.pdf
|volume=Vol-2294
|authors=Geoffrey Tabo Olok
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Olok18
}}
==Application of Participatory Design in Designing Infrastructures for Learning in resource
limiting environments==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_23.pdf
Application of Participatory Design in Designing
Infrastructures for Learning in resource limiting
environments
Tabo Olok Geoffrey1[0000-1111-2222-3333] and Second Author2[1111-2222-3333-4444]
1 Aalborg Uninversity, Aalborg 9000, Denmaark
go_tabo@hum.aau.dk
Abstract. In this paper Participatory Design as methodological approach for de-
signing Infrastructures for learning is explored. The paper emphasizes the need
to accommodate for socio-technical and socio-cultural aspects of infrastructure
to respond to requirements for new innovative ways of learning such as eLearn-
ing and Problem Based Learning (PBL). We investigate design options of infra-
structure for learning in a limited resource setting environment with a case study.
Participatory Design methodology with a strong tradition in empowering workers
in decision making on matters that affect their work is used to foster end user
participation in the design process. Since the methodology has several methods,
we chose to use Focused Group Discussions/Interviews, Future Workshop and
co-Design Workshops. This study outcome uniquely contributes to knowledge
by offering participatory design as an alternative among other alternatives to de-
signing in limited resource environments. Future Workshop and co-Design
Workshops are new to the environment and have offered solution in user partic-
ipation and shaping designs for infrastructure at Gulu University which is taken
as a case.
Keywords: Participatory Design, Infrastructure, socio-technical, socio-cultural.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The higher education sector in Africa has seen very many changes in a drive to address
the importance of quality, innovation and creativity in higher education in an African
context in the 21st century [1]. The importance of these factors in attaining sustainable
growth and production in all sectors cannot be over emphasized. However, many Afri-
can Universities struggle to provide education, services and research needed for the
continents advancement [2]. This general perception is complicated because it involves
many players (i.e. political, social, economic, research issues) but there are common
phenomena that can be discussed. For the purpose of this article, we shall narrow our
discussion to the methodology and try to tackle the question “How” with a case study
of Gulu University in Uganda.
2
Today there is an increasing gap between the number of candidates graduating from
the universities and the available employment opportunities and those who are actually
employed [3] especially for the youth holding university degrees. The high unemploy-
ment rates have led to the need for higher education in developing countries to deliver
knowledge, quality and skills in line with the societal needs. These needs are often
formulated as the 21st century skills: problem formulation, problem solving, innovation
and collaboration [4].
With computers and Internet technology advancing at fast rate, several models of
learning are made possible to deliver to those needs. In this project, we envision how
to integrate both research for more tangible methods of university teaching and learning
in line with the 21st century skills; and digital learning to make possible these new ways
of learning in the context of a resource constraint country such as Uganda. More pre-
cisely, we are looking into adopting blended learning (problem project-based learning
and eLearning) into the Master of Education Planning and Management Courses. The
pedagogical mode of problem based learning (PBL) is an innovative way to learning
and provides learners with multitude of skills for success in the 21st century [4] also in
line with technology enhanced learning.
The use of information and communication technology for learning still is not main-
streamed in universities in Uganda [5] although it has a high priority in the governmen-
tal plans and strategies for the development of higher education [6]. However, devel-
opment agencies are making this vision possible through supporting digitalisation both
as a means to make university education accessible for more students and to develop
new educational programs. New pedagogical principles integrating the possibilities of
digitalization are researched into and integrated in the new programs [7]. Example are
already seen with the world bank 2000/2002 report on education. This paper will con-
tribute to a methodology into this unique situation, where there is a momentum to re-
search into the implementation and use of new pedagogical approaches supported by
ICT. We try to answer the question how to design infrastructures for learning to accom-
modate the socio-technical and socio-cultural aspects of new ways of learning? and
Which methods to apply? for better adoption and change within Ugandan context
1.2 The project description
Infrastructure and the concept of infrastructure are not new to academia as well as in-
dustry. Infrastructure as a concept is defined as a set or resources [8] and as a relation-
ship between focal resource and supporting resource [9]. The term infrastructure there-
fore has many perspectives as social, cultural, technical and human views [10]. Practi-
tioners and researchers working with ICT at one point might have felt that infrastructure
is insufficient and especially that its only recognized when it breaks down. This concept
is referred to by Guribye as transparency or black box. These breakdowns are frequent
occurrences in developing countries’ higher education institutions. A more specific
case can be seen in universities in Uganda where electricity, internet, physical structures
and work processes are not taken at the level of seriousness they deserve. There are
otherwise many challenges with infrastructure for learning in Uganda. A more
3
prominent challenge is experienced with the Information Technology Infrastructure
such as lack of bandwidth, computing resources, skilled human capacity, policies and
procedures [5], stable electricity, not widespread networked capacity, low score in net-
worked readiness.
However, despite those afore mentioned deficiencies, we are addressing infrastruc-
ture issues for learning from both at the conceptual and at a practical level and thus the
choice of a methodology that seeks to empower users and designers to share skills and
knowledge. The research takes its point of departure in a case study using Gulu Uni-
versity in the Northern Uganda as a demonstration case.
Gulu University is a rather young university established in 2002 by act of parliament
of Uganda as the fourth public university [11]. The main aim of the establishment is to
promote development of the northern part of the country that had been at the center of
civil war for two decades. The University mission is to provide access to higher educa-
tion, research and conduct quality professional training for delivery of appropriate ser-
vices aimed at community transformation and conservation of biodiversity. With the
bar set so high, the university is in the process of transforming its business process to
deliver services with 21st century skills.
Within Gulu University there is an interest in promoting new ways of teaching and
learning in line with the 21st century skills, especially problem and project based learn-
ing as well as to promoting and developing Gulu university as an e-campus (reference
made to policy papers). As such – because of the commitment to change, the University
is a very interesting case for rolling out new approaches to learning integrating ICT.
The research is especially concerned with the issues of infrastructures for learning
at university level and in a resource constraint setting such as Gulu University and
Uganda. We understand infrastructures for new ways of learning as a crucial issue. It’s
crucial because a pedagogy and practice unfold itself in a dialectical response to the
infrastructure. The infrastructure does not determinate the pedagogy and practice, how-
ever it affords a practice. Furthermore, infrastructure investments are expensive and
should last for long. Therefore, to focus on the digital infrastructure in resource con-
straints settings to support the development of new pedagogical methods for learning
are crucial, as well as design issues and methods for implementing are important issues
to research into.
2 Methodological approach, methods and techniques
This research is inspired by the action research into transforming education though in-
troduction of new innovative pedagogies or new ways of learning as in the proposal for
Building Stronger Universities Project. Action research based on intervention in higher
education in order to strengthen systems and processes for these new ways of teaching
and learning that addresses the 21st Century skills.
4
2.1 Participatory design Methodology
Participatory design (PD) originated in the Scandinavia between the 70s and 80s moti-
vated by a Marxist commitment to empower workers and espouse democracy at work-
place [12]. PD has had impact in strengthening users’ skills and product quality. User
participation in the decision-making process on what affects their life at work is taken
very seriously. In this study of infrastructures, the design process is moved towards user
perception of the technology and how it can augment their work of teaching. It is his-
torically, a Scandinavian traditional of involving users in the decision making in what
affects workers using technology in the design process [12].
PD has been defined as set of theories, practices and studies relating to end users as
participants in activities leading to computer technology products [12]. This methodol-
ogy is important when users need to be empowered in developing, strengthening and
sustaining collaborations between users and designers. It attempts to actively engage
users and designers in the product design process to quality assure the product meets
expectations of all stakeholders[13]. More emphasis is placed on the process and pro-
cedure of design as opposed on the product perfection. This is a new approach in com-
puter system design where users play a critical role in defining their needed design or
product. The method precisely blend practical intervention and theoretical reflections
leading to higher acceptance of outcome[12].
PD has a rich history in incorporating disadvantaged groups in society into research
which has made it widely used in development research fields relating to design of ICT
systems [7]. It involves people actively participating in a research process relating to
technologies in workplaces, communities, and social institutions [14].
In a way to involve people in the design of technology, participatory design thrives
on collaborative processes determined by participation of stakeholders who use that
technology [15].
There are methods, tools and techniques developed in support of future users, de-
signers and reflect on future practices that new technologies might bring through par-
ticipatory design whose literature is increasingly including technology use and recon-
figuration of technology to support new and anticipated use.
To understand the teaching and learning process resulting from the introduction of
e-learning and PBL at Gulu University, participatory design or more specifically Par-
ticipatory action research as operationalised in studying experiences of educators [7]
was chosen as a point departure for the research methodology with associated theoret-
ical frameworks such as expansive learning theory and activity theory.
This approach is more about design with the aim of producing artefacts, systems,
work organisation and practical knowledge as the research itself [12] and so design is
described as research. The methods that are drawn from the approach are many. For
example; Future Workshops, Co-Design, focused group interviews, analysis of arte-
facts and protocols. According to Spinuzzi (2005), I quote: “all these methods are used
to iteratively construct the emerging design, which itself simultaneously constitutes and
elicits the research results as co-interpreted by designer-researcher and participants
who will use the design”. The methods ensure that participants views and interpretation
5
are taken into the research with the goal to concurrently envisage and shape in ways
described by user requirements [12].
2.2 Methods and techniques
Research methods provide necessary steps to support a research undertaking (Rama-
dhan and Arman, 2014). Participatory design methodology has several methods and
techniques [12]. I will describe in detail the methods and techniques that are used in
this study.
Future Workshop
This method was developed in the 1970’s as a tool for the civil action groups striving
for better enforcement of their future interest [16]. This method is based on “Social
learning” and it is praised by constructivist in educational sciences where individual
participants are able to find new resolutions in their reconstruction of reality [16]. In
order to transform a system or a process, it is important to criticise the actual situation
and then dream about a preferred future then find ways to move from current to the
desired future situation [17]. This underscores Hengel’s dialectics that problems are
solved by critique [16] and that critiques exposes the present circumstances. This
method emphasizes learning, teamwork, democracy, assessment and participant em-
powerment making is a good method processes leading to better society [16], [17]. Fu-
ture Workshop is therefore used to facilitate participation in group processes dealing
with real world problems [17], for example creating a better future work environment,
tools and policies. The method seeks to support creativity and the creation of group
synergies for individuals that are in the same situation.
The method has been applied in many different settings and in handling unique sit-
uations especially in Scandinavian communities (Vidal, 2005) and has gained grounds
in management theories [16]. This technique where participants share knowledge and
experiences in a more productive way has gained greater demand [16] for research.
Vidal tried to give a practical and a theoretical insight into the method. With the in-
crease in the popularity of the method, the need to prepare a concise guide for facilitat-
ing Futures Workshops soon arose [18]. Apel outlined the phases of the method as
Preparation, Critique, Fantasy and implementation which was summarised by Vidal as
Critique, Fantasy, and Implementation. The Finland Futures Research Centre presented
a format that can be used when seeking answers to practical questions and devising
plans for achieving desired future[18]. This as a very innovative way of involving users
in innovatively solving common problems just like in designing infrastructure for
teaching and learning in higher education. To prepare the teachers to design for the
future of integrating technology the Future Workshop provided an excellent environ-
ment.
The workshop tasks encompasses principles of creative and or collaborative problem
solving and socially a allows the group to express themselves as a way of facilitating
responsible participatory democracy [17], [18].
Design Workshop: Case Study
6
This research method affords researcher with ability to conduct a study of a phenome-
non in a real-life context, thus investigating questions like how and why of the study
[19]. A prototype of the LMS developed is tested with students of Master of Education
Planning and Management whose curriculum is redesigned to incorporate PBL peda-
gogy and eLearning. This test will run for a semester and is followed by a focused group
discussion to answer on affordance of the system. Accordingly, ICT has become part
of our everyday life, practice and leisure time. In designing innovative ICTs, we need
to ably engage with given practices, institutional arrangements and technological infra-
structures. An intervention in the Master of Education Planning and Management will
be taken as a case study in this study.
Staff who teach on the programme participate and set the basis of integration of ICT
to facilitate collaboration, teaching and learning. The case study is based on the courses
implemented on the learning management system in the first semester of study.
Apart from an in-depth study of the main concept of Infrastructure, pedagogical prin-
ciples, theories and concepts related to participatory design and qualitative research
methods will be discussed. The methods [12] usually employed in iteratively construct-
ing promising design which become the outcome as understood by researchers and par-
ticipants who are users of the resulting design.
Data collection
Our data collection techniques include Future Workshop, focused group interview, doc-
ument analysis and design workshops. The target group for the study are the academic
staff of the department of Education Planning and Management in the faculty of Edu-
cation and Humanities. This study also specifically targets the academic staff teaching
in the Master of Education Planning and Management because they are responsible for
the curriculum design and delivery. In addition to these staff, we have the technical
staff in the IT and management. This latter category is targeted because the study of
Infrastructure requires funding and maintenance of these systems for sustainability.
Data is collected through, Future Workshop with the teachers in the department and
other staff who are also teachers in the programme. A focused group discussion on the
state of the infrastructure with the IT staff helped in writing a sort narrative of the po-
sition on IT Infrastructure in which other infrastructure requirements were identified
and presented. A design workshop was conducted from which other requirements like
policies, bandwidth and technical personnel were identified as elements in infrastruc-
ture for learning.
Ethical issues
Qualitative research by its nature involves collecting data from people by involving
people [19]. This underscores the importance of ethical considerations in this research
at all stages of the research in taking care of issues that arise along the research contin-
uum. For each of the sessions consent forms are used to communicate the research in-
tention and participants consent is sought. Although the research targets a single fac-
ulty, participation where data (audio and photo) was being collected is voluntary.
Data Analysis
7
The audio data is transcribed and themes relating to infrastructure identified. Drawings,
flipcharts, paper prototypes and PowerPoint presentations are collected from the groups
and presenters. Other electronic materials are also collected on the LMS for future ref-
erences by both research participants and researchers. Participants have no rights to
alter the data on the system but can generally use the information for both academic are
research. These are more especially data relating to curriculum redesign and Problem/
Project Based Learning (PBL) discussions, notes and reports from various groups and
workshop reports.
In the data analysis, we use expansive learning as a theoretical framework and as
analysis lenses to understand and explain the phenomena in the data. The choice to use
expansive learning was based on the fact that we note that local learning takes place in
collaboration and partnerships among stakeholders.
Conclusion
Participatory design is a methodology reach in methods with so much choices to ex-
plore user knowledge and skills. PD allows for democratic developments at work place
thus giving users powers to make decision on what affects them. The result of using
such method is sustainable systems for change with collective responsibility.
.
References
[1] D. Z. Atibuni, D. K. Olema, J. Ssenyonga, S. Karl, and G. M. Kibanja, “Mediation Effect
of Research Skills Proficiency on the Core Self-Evaluations--Research Engagement
Relationship among Master of Education Students in Uganda,” J. Educ. Pract., vol. 8,
no. 15, pp. 103–108, 2017.
[2] D. Teferra and P. G. Altbachl, “African higher education: Challenges for the 21st
century,” High. Educ., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 21–50, 2004.
[3] A. Wilkinson et al., “The employment environment for youth in rural South Africa: A
mixed-methods study,” Dev. South. Afr., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 17–32, 2017.
[4] S. Bell, “Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future,” Clear.
House A J. Educ. Strateg. Issues Ideas, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 39–43, 2010.
[5] P. O. Ayoo and J. T. Lubega, “Exploring the Implementation of Blended Learning in a
Developing Country: A Case Study of Uganda,” in Strengthening the Role of ICT in
Development, 2008, vol. IV, pp. 152–163.
[6] National Planning Authority, “Uganda Vision 2040,” 2012.
[7] P.-O. Zander, M. Georgsen, and T. Nyvang, “Scandinavian Participatory Design -
Beyond Design, Beyond Scandinavia,” in Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age:
Designing and Delivering E-Learning, 2007, pp. 1–260.
[8] S. Star and K. Ruhleder, “Steps Toward Design an Ecology and Access of
Infrastructure : for Large Spaces Information,” Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 111–134,
1996.
[9] F. Guribye, “Infrastructures for learning. Ethnographic Inquiries Into The Social And
8
Technical Conditions Of Education And Training,” 2005.
[10] F. Guribye, “From Artifacts to Infrastructures in Studies of Learning Practices,” Mind,
Cult. Act., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 184–198, 2015.
[11] P. Olango, G. Bouma, G. Andogah, and J. Nerbonne, “Effect of document enrichment
on e-learning,” Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 73, pp. 1–8, 2013.
[12] C. Spinuzzi, “The Methodology of Participatory Design,” Tech. Commun., vol. 52, no.
2, pp. 163–174, 2005.
[13] S. Bødker and O. S. Iversen, “Staging a Professional Participatory Design Practice -
Moving PD beyond the Initial Fascination of User Involvement,” Proc. Second Nord.
Conf. Human-Computer Interact., no. January, pp. 11–18, 2002.
[14] M. J. Muller and S. Kuhn, “Participatory design,” Commun.ACM, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 24–
28, 1993.
[15] J. Simmonen and T. Robertson, “Participatory Design,” Routledge, 2012. [Online].
Available:
https://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Robinson+and+Simonsen
%2C+Routledge+International+Handbook+of+Participatory+Design%2C+Routledge+
2012%2C&btnG=. [Accessed: 11-Nov-2017].
[16] H. Apel, “The Future Workshop,” Heino Apel Futur. Work. Dtsch. Inst. für
Erwachsenenbildung, pp. 1–12, 2004.
[17] R. V. V. Vidal, “The Future Workshop: Democratic Problem Solving,” Informatics
Math. Model. Tech. Univ. Denmark, DTU, pp. 1–22, 2005.
[18] V. Lauttamäki, “Practical Guide for Facilitating a Futures Workshop,” no. October, p.
11, 2014.
[19] T. Bj©ırner, Qualitative methods for consumer research: the value of the qualitative
approach in theory and practice. Gyldendal Akademisk, 2016.