(207g) Participatory Design As a Tool to Develop Advanced Experiential Learning Projects for Chemical Engineering Students

Participatory
Design as a tool to develop advanced experiential learning projects for
Chemical Engineering students

Pavan
Inguva, Assen Batchvarov, Umang V. Shah^*, Clemens Brechtelsbauer

*Department
of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus,
London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

Abstract

Introduction

Empowering
students to become co-creators of their educational experience is one of the
desired goals of student-centric teaching approaches. They traditionally focus
on content delivery and course operations with student involvement being
limited to providing feedback at the end of the course. We have previously used
Participatory Design (PD) as a tool to design experiential learning modules.

Figure
1
Schematics explaining participatory design based approaches for experiential
learning based module development.

PD proved
to be effective in enhancing student engagement and module teachability. By
involving undergraduate (UG) students of different degrees of seniority and
teaching assistants (TA) as partners in the module design process, their
experiences and feedback can be integrated from the conception stage right up
to delivery.

The
use of participatory design for developing modules with fixed learning
objectives is evident in the literature (Inguva
et al., 2018), however, employing similar approaches for
open-ended projects poses its own unique challenges. Research based (semi-)open
ended projects require advanced teaching tools appropriate to the learning
level and a module structure capable of enabling open-ended enquiry. This study
aims to develop a PD based approach for semi-open ended, research based modules
designed with experiential learning as the pedagogic underpinning.

Research
Method

This investigation
part of ongoing efforts of intervention based pedagogic research, commonly
known in literature as action research. It involves students as key stake
holders in shaping their and their peers’ learning. The Key pedagogic research
question asked for this work is “How does a participatory design (PD) based
approach to design an open-ended research project change from a PD based
approach for projects with fixed objectives?”

We
used the participatory design approach for module development to develop and
implement a third-year core chemical engineering laboratory project themed
around mixing in stirred vessels. The project was designed to allow students to
independently propose and investigate a variety of influencing factors.

The
project was developed over the summer of 2018 involving two second-year UG
students, two third-year UG students, a graduate teaching assistant (TA), a teaching
lab technician, and an academic with relevant expertise in the area.

The
effectiveness of the PD based approach was evaluated through a weekly
questionnaire to track development of the stakeholders.  Focus group interviews
and a survey of all the students, who were offered this project were also
conducted at the end of the module.

Evaluation
of Effectiveness

Due to
the small number of students who were offered this module (n=10), the
survey focused on collecting student feedback in the form of free text
comments.

Students
broadly acknowledged and appreciated the open-endedness and flexibility
afforded by the set-up and the teaching tools. They also enjoyed the ability to
further adapt the tools provided to suit their needs.

“[A] Good number of options were available,
helping to understand different aspects of mixing”

“[The] Set-up was easy to understand and
modify compared to [sic] other experiments”

When asked about their perspectives on
involving students in the module design process, the students who took the
module felt that this brings the following benefits: 1) Contemporary design and
innovation, and 2) enhanced accessibility.

To holistically evaluate the value of PD,
on-top of learner experience, the dividends to stakeholders (skills development
for student partners and development of educational resources for educators)
need to be considered.

Dividends
to Stakeholders

Figure
2
CFD model with different impeller geometries (Top) and sample simulation
results (Bottom)

To
provide prospective students with multiple analytical tools for exploring the
design space, the 3rd year students and TA proposed implementing a
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) model of the system. In addition, one of the
2^nd year students proposed an image analysis tool for studying
mixing and implemented it using MATLAB. The development of these sophisticated
tools requires expertise and skills in specialist areas. Whilst most teaching
staff may have a good theoretical understanding of these topics, they may not
have the skill or time to implement such tools.

Student
stakeholders involved in the module development process were expected to learn
and employ newly acquired knowledge to design experimental resources. It was
observed that students were independently learning new skills, technical
knowledge and could creatively apply the acquired knowledge with limited
guidance. Any module designed with a PD framework should have a training
component. For example, the development of the CFD system was carried out in
openFOAM, a highly powerful open-source CFD software. By working closely with the
experienced TA, the students gained proficiency in this tool. Examples of the
model developed by the student partners are shown in Figure.2.

The
construction and commissioning of the set-up can also provide valuable learning
opportunities to student partners. Figure 3 shows the CAD file done by one of
the 2^nd year student partners who was keen on learning CAD and
machining. The student took significant initiative in liaising with suppliers
and the in-house machine shop, gaining proficiency in industrially relevant
engineering skills. The high quality of educational resources developed
demonstrate the capability of student partners to grow and contribute given the
right support and training.

This
emphasises a broader project management point that educators should take note
of when implementing a PD framework. Stakeholders need to be engaged at a
suitable skill level and be given the help they need to grow. Ostensibly, as
the skill level required for the task increases (from junior to senior level
module development), educators should be aware of this in selecting students
and providing training resources.

Figure
3
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Drawing of Set-up Made by Student

Participatory
Design – Changing Roles for Stakeholders

Discussion
with participating stake holders suggested that the broad ideas of a PD based
module development approach still are applicable to the module design process
for open ended research based module. On a macro-level, each stage of the
module design process (from conception to construction and beta-testing to
roll-out), benefits from 1) the stakeholders’ perspective of how the module and
teaching material can be improved for both educators and students 2) providing
unique ideas and suggestions based on their personal or professional experience.
On a micro level, incorporating a double feedback mechanism where suggestions
from the educator and other stakeholders can be iterated upon, ensures that ideas
are exhaustively evaluated. One key point was that free flow of information
between different stakeholders was fundamental to the success of the process. 
Students felt that they could express their views in a more relaxing and open
environment, where discussions were focused on intellectual merit and benefitted
from the collated expertise of the module development team.

Subtle
changes in stakeholder interaction and involvement was observed compared to the
participatory design based module design approach reported in the literature.
In addition to the specific example cited above, the following changes in the
interaction dynamics between stakeholders were observed:

-      
The
educator motivated the student stakeholders to take control of the project,
providing input on broader pedagogical and process issues rather than being
involved in development minutiae. Rather than directly intervening and solving
problems, the educator helped students to find the resources or contacts they
needed. In summary, the educator assumes the role of a facilitator, providing
an enabling environment to the student and TA stakeholders.

-      
As
the project development progressed, the student stakeholders felt empowered to
conceptualize aspects of the module themselves. Considering the open-ended
inquiry desired by the module, the student stakeholders now provided the
process, ideas, and the specifications for tools to implement them. These would
be discussed and agreed on by all the stakeholders including educators to
ensure appropriate quality.

Conclusions

Our work validates PD as a module design
framework to develop highly student centric modules, including open-ended
research. Educators need to be aware of the increased technical complexity of these
modules and how this correspondingly influences stakeholder dynamics for
effective project management and stakeholder engagement.

References

Inguva,
P., Lee-Lane, D., Teck, A., Anabaraonye, B., et al. (2018) Advancing
experiential learning through participatory design. Education for Chemical
Engineers. 25, 16–21.