Prototypes and props, playtests and pilots
What does participatory prototyping bring to the act of designing learning encounters?
Just as the field of participatory design was grounded in the politics of giving voice to the marginalised, the orientation of student-centred learning can be understood as granting the learner greater agency. Tracing this connection has me wondering how encounters that invite the student to be the director of their own learning might draw on active participation through the iterative practice of prototyping? Greater agency might look like a student having permission to frame the purpose, shape the curriculum, or channel her own intrinsic motivation. For us, participation and agency operate as twin catalysts for learner engagement.
How might we make sense of the term participation at the intersection of designing and learning? One guiding principle of Participatory Design is that the coming together of people creates a platform for mutual learning. Tone Bratteteig and colleagues define this mutual learning as two-way learning between the users and the designers. In this situation, the users are sharing with the designers' new insights about the use context and designers are revealing new possibilities for the situation (p. 139).
In further questioning how participatory prototyping applies here we need to make sense of how we are using the term prototyping. Staged evolutions from sketch to refined prototype are a staple of designing artefacts. From architectural models to fashion samples to product design prototypes there is a commitment to test the functionality, interrogate the use-case scenario or experiment with different materials. At the heart of prototyping there is his belief in the feedback loop that comes from putting not-resolved ideas out into the world. Here I am wondering how a prototypical orientation might inform the design of learning encounters. What might a people-centred practice that iteratively enacts the experiential testing of not fully realised ideas look like?
As designers, we often use prototyping as a generic, all-purpose term. The product design version of a prototype is not representative of what we are talking about. A design practice that works across services, experiences and interactions calls for some more nuanced terms for the evaluative act of prototyping. This sequential framework posits some terms for proof of concept experiments, play-testing, props and pilot programs to introduce complementary conditions for how we propose, experience and evaluate the not-yet-known.
Proof of Concept — Make Possible
A proof of concept is an early-in-the-process strategy for testing the potential of an idea — think of whether temporary tattoos could be used with middle school children to make the practice of grit seem more desirable than dorky. The lessons noted in observing students interacting with tattoos would help inform whether the hypothesis has potential or not. If a proof of concept confirmed that an idea could move forward, then the prototype would be used to explore how it might work.
Prototypes and Props — Make Believe
The prototype offers a tangible representation of an idea in development — think of people pretending to be students who are taking photos of their grit tattoos and sharing them on Instagram. The prototype of people role-playing how students and social media might interact could directly inform the look and feel of the next iteration of the tattoo. Add to this scene design props that operate as stand-ins for how interactions might unfold — think of the introduction of a cardboard photo booth to the scene above. In this scenario the cardboard photo booth is not a prototype intended to evaluate how the final program might look or feel, yet it could help to inform how the encounter might work.
Playtests and Pilots — Make Real
Similarly, a playtest serves a similar function with participants experiencing iterations of the gameplay — think of students tagging evidence of gritty behaviour to peers initial tattoo photos. Here the playtest gives the designer (as an outside observer) a sense of what motivates the students to refine the game’s quest and goals. Once the iterations of playtests and prototypes have defined a direction the last phase in the process might be the pilot. The pilot offers a small scale ‘live’ roll out to learn from the early stages of implementation — think of a fully realised tattoo/grit game-based program being piloted in one classroom before being introduced to the whole school. The pilot is a time for the designer to be disciplined in noticing how the program might be refined in support of successful implementation.
Prototyping is still a useful shorthand for the kinds of moves that contemporary design uses when it brings an iterative, evaluative mindset to the creative process. Participatory prototyping, in this case, is not simply about mutual learning but about a more complex kind of prototyping that is improvised, responsive and social in nature. Participatory prototyping is not just a process by which we could conceive of the learning of others, this is also how designers learn from being in conversation with the materials and interactions of the participatory situation. Whether it is designers role-playing being students, students play-testing a game or learners test driving a pilot program it is at the point of intersection between prototype and participant that learning is amplified. We use the term participatory prototyping to underscore the potential of co-creation, specifically with respect to how the material tools of participatory design and the prototyping mindset of experiential evaluation might scaffold learning through doing in a social context.
