RAPID PROTOTYPING: RESOURCE DOCUMENT

Daniel A. Taylor

Overview

        Rapid prototyping, as a model of instructional design, is a reaction to the perceived discrepancy between the idealized design process of more traditional models (such as the ADDIE and Dick-Carey models) and the actual steps that are taken by instructional designers.  Nixon and Lee (2001) report that most instructional designers, operating according to a traditional linear model, habitually leave out steps in these models, as their specific instructional problems require.  Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990), who first described rapid prototyping as an instructional design model, argue that this discrepancy between theoretical requirements and practical considerations stems from a philosophical conflict: namely, that design activities, such as instructional design, are sciences of the artificial, studying that which is created by man, and is best approached with design thinking.  This is contrasted with the natural sciences, which study nature, which exists apart from man.  The view here is that a purely scientific, descriptive model is not appropriate for instructional design, as its regimented steps and definite progression along a conceptual path leaves no room for design thinking, which is at its essence non-hierarchical and transformational.  

        To address this deficiency in traditional instructional design comes rapid prototyping.  The overall schema of the model can be reviewed in Figure 1b.  

Figure 1. a) Lentz’s original rapid prototyping approach to software design, and b) Tripp and Bichelmeyer’s model for instructional design.  Adapted from Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44.

        As in other design models, the initial step is analysis of the problem at hand and the materials available to solve the problem.  After this analysis, objectives for the instructional projects are set and a prototype of the required instruction is designed and produced.  The prototype is tested by a user, who gives feedback in a formative evaluation step.  This feedback is used to alter and improve the original prototype.  This process continues until it is determined that all objectives have been met.  Instruction is installed and maintained from that point (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

        A reader with some experience in other instructional design models may notice that, as described above, the rapid prototyping model appears just as linear and hierarchical as others.  There are important differences, however.  First, note that the different steps are overlapping.  This indicates that these processes may be (and, in fact, should be) performed simultaneously by different members of the design team.  As soon as the initial elements of the analysis are completed, members of the design team begin creating prototypes.  At this point, there is but a nascent design, and certainly very little planning has been done, yet a prototype of instruction is rapidly produced.  Once completed, it is brought before the user for formative analysis.  Simultaneously, other members of the team are working on other prototypes, informed by other elements of the analysis process, or by the proposed learning objectives.  Thus, a number of prototypes are being worked up at any given time, often using different techniques or philosophies (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

        Before leaving the point, let us consider further the act of prototyping before analysis is complete.  Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) argue that a designer, engaged in creating an artificiality, cannot know all possible options that are available to him.  This state of incomplete, or bounded, rationality, is a hallmark of design work, and is characterized by “uncertainty, uniqueness, and conflict” (p. 34).  Thus, since analysis cannot bring complete foreknowledge of a design process, there is no reason to wait to begin creating prototypes.  In fact, the action of building and adjusting a prototype without fear of mistakes may clarify certain problems and their solutions earlier in the process.

        The parallel prototyping that occurs is but one facet of the next great point of rapid prototyping, that of iteration.  Multiple models are created, evaluated, updated, remade, reevaluated, discarded, or accepted, depending upon the vaguarities of the project.  Mistakes are acceptable as long as they are quickly corrected upon their identification.  It is a cardinal sin for any designer to become too wedded to his work, as the very nature of rapid prototyping is alteration (Nixon & Lee, 2001; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).  For example, Desrosier (2011) reports, in his case study of rapid prototyping, that major changes to the product were required several times throughout the design process, including instances near its beginning and end.  A traditional model would not have been able to accommodate these well, since a particular medium or technique would have likely been decided upon before design had begun, making large changes difficult to enact.  

        Because prototypes must be quickly created and changed in rapid prototyping, the available design tools and resources are of great importance.  Instructional design software makes large changes to instruction possible in relatively short periods of time.  It exhibits both modularity (the ability to modify any part of the instruction as needed, without affecting the remainder) and plasticity (the ability to easily and quickly modify the instruction), and is, thus, well-suited for rapid production, testing, and alteration of the product (Desrosier, 2011; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).  Existing resources (e.g., clip art, sound effects, partial lessons) are used extensively in rapid prototyping, as the aim is not to create a polished product initially, but one that can be tested.  Old resources will work equally well for the development process as new ones, and can be used much more efficiently (Jones, Li, & Merrill, 1992).

        Once a prototype is functional, it is immediately tested by a customer.  This can be a client, student, consumer, or anyone else who is a member of the target audience of the proposed instruction.  Even this formative evaluation process is different in rapid prototyping, however; the designer is encouraged to actively work with the customer.  An error or suggestion, for example, noticed by the customer, can be immediately fixed.  The designer can ask the customer for opinions about points as they come to mind.  As in the steps described above, flexibility of process is crucial, and scientific formality is deemphasized (Nixon & Lee, 2001; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1992).

        Transparency with the client and other members of the instructional design team is crucial.  Keeping secrets will lead to delays and poorly-adjusted prototypes.  Likewise, input must be speedily understood and resultant changes immediately made.  The designer who will not adjust his actions based on input cannot work in a rapid prototyping model; as Desrosier (2011) put it, “unresponsiveness to input is anathema” (p. 141).

        As parallel prototypes are created, evaluated, adjusted, reevaluated, and discarded, the design team should eventually find that it has a product that meets its objectives (set, as you recall, near the beginning of the process).  At this point, design is over.  The product is implemented and put into use (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

        The rapid prototyping process requires a few adjustments to expectations to be effective.  Designers must realize that efficiency is key.  Rapid prototyping is a constantly-moving, constantly-adjusting discipline.  Changes must be made, and made quickly, in order for the process to work appropriately.  The drive for efficiency underlies everything that is done.  Second, the specific population of the design team is vital to the success of the enterprise.  Members must be enthusiastic about the problem and its solution.  They must be motivated, as the ubiquitous desire for efficiency leads to long, busy hours.  They must be experienced in instructional design.  Though rapid prototyping is its own model, any given prototype may follow other models or designs.  Suggestions for change do no good if the designer cannot implement them.  Some knowledge of the best instructional-design practices will be helpful creating prototype after prototype (Desrosier, 2011; Nixon & Lee, 2001; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

        The product that arises from a rapid prototyping process has been found to be of a perceived higher quality than products created using traditional methods, according to one study.  The same study also contends that the design process is perceived to take less time from start to finish that traditional design models (Jones & Richey, 2000).  

        Rapid prototyping is a useful method that yields good results.  However, it is best-suited for certain situations.  Complex instructional problems, areas of instruction that are new and relatively poorly understood, and design activities with pressing deadlines are situations tailor-made for the strengths of rapid prototyping.  Some factors that make rapid prototyping unsuitable are poor institutional support, and limited resources and funds (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

History

        Rapid prototyping emerged from the fabrication and software development fields in the 1980s.  Its development as a process was a reaction to improved software capabilities.  As we have seen, for rapid prototyping to be effective, it requires tools with specific and powerful functionality.  The cutting-edge computer software of the late 1980s provided just that functionality.  Companies saw that they now had the ability to make large changes to their software projects relatively quickly.  Out of this increased functionality came rapid prototyping, which allowed complex projects to be tackled and completed in relatively short periods of time (Desrosier, 2011; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

        Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) identified that the software development and instructional design processes have certain similarities: both attempt to solve complex problems in an orderly fashion, emphasize the value of formative evaluation, and often operate under time, resource, and monetary restraints.  At a more fundamental (or, perhaps, more philosophical) level, both disciplines are among the artificial, or design, sciences, as they are studies of that which is created by man.

        Based upon these similarities, Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) theorized that rapid prototyping could be easily adapted for instructional design, and adopted Lantz’s software design rapid-prototyping model (see Figure 1a)--with a few minor changes--as their instructional design model (see Figure 1b).

        After its initial entry into the field, an increasing number of instructional designers experimented with the model, both practically and empirically.  Yang created a three-dimensional rapid-prototyping model for the development of electronic courseware (Desrosier, 2011; Jones and Richey, 2000).  The proponents of the Second Generation Instructional Design (ID2) model, which is designed to create automated instructional design systems, quickly identified rapid prototyping as similar in spirit to ID2, and used it to improve the efficiency of their model (Jones, Li, & Merrill, 1992; Nixon & Lee, 2001).  The Participatory Design Model similarly used rapid prototyping as part of its consumer-focused model to better understand the real world of the consumers (Nixon & Lee, 2001).

Key Persons

        On this list of key persons in rapid prototyping, Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) are preeminent, for they saw the possibilities for instructional design in rapid prototyping, and adjusted it for use in the field.  They invented the rapid prototyping instructional design model.

        Jones, Li, and Merrill (1992) developed the ID2 model, and implemented rapid prototyping as a vital part of it, further solidifying its position as a standard instructional design model.

        Jones and Richey (2000) reinforced the model with empirical evidence, sorely lacking to that point, supporting its claims of increased process efficiency and product quality.

        Desrosier (2011) has recently reintroduced rapid prototyping to the consciousness of the instructional design community, by describing the use of the model in the design of a full course curriculum.  

Differentiation

        Compared to the majority of traditional instructional design models, rapid prototyping is far more organic and “feel-based.”  The ADDIE and Dick-Carey models, for example, lend themselves to defined steps in a certain order.  Steps that take a long time to complete will necessarily bottleneck the process.  Rapid prototyping bypasses this issue by simply working on a prototype in the meantime.  The secret is that the very act of developing and evaluating a prototype will often reveal answers for the designer’s his questions, which are immediately implemented in a revised prototype and tested again (Nixon & Lee, 2001).

        The Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp model is similarly regimented in its steps, but concedes that the steps may need to be performed out of the prescribed order found in the model.  In that way, it is similar to rapid prototyping, though it does not approach the level of organized chaos found there.

        From a philosophical perspective, some authors believe that rapid prototyping represents a paradigm shift in instructional design, because it is acknowledging, in a model, what instructional designers do naturally; adjust the process to the problem at hand (Desrosier, 2011; Nixon & Lee, 2001; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).  It is fundamentally-different from other models in that it seeks to impose as few restrictions upon designers as possible.  According to rapid prototyping, if a designer wishes to design instruction, he should spend most of his time actually designing instruction, not evaluating the process of design (Desrosier, 2011).

Bibliography

Desrosier, J. (2011). Rapid prototyping reconsidered. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 135-145. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2011.614881

                Desrosier gives a useful overview of rapid prototyping, its origins, and its theoretical uses in instructional design and curriculum creation. Included is a case example showing how a program of study can be created using rapid prototyping (available at http://www.hastac.org/files/ujch_a_614881.pdf).

Jones, M. K., Li, Z., & Merrill, M. D. (1992). Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 95-100.

                Though technical and somewhat difficult to follow by readers not within the software development discipline, this article reviews the ID2 development model--an elaboration upon rapid prototyping--and includes a useful discussion of the use of components in rapid prototyping.  A case study describes some of the challenges present when creating software to automate instructional design, and how rapid prototyping can help overcome these challenges.

Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63-80.

                Realizing that the initial work on rapid prototyping in instructional design has little empirical research to support its assertions, the authors report the results of a qualitative study of this model, in which they find that rapid prototyping does seem to improve quality, and decrease development time.  They create a more detailed rapid prototyping model based on their results, which is worth reviewing.

Nixon, E. K., & Lee, D. (2001). Rapid prototyping in the instructional design process. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(3), 95-116.

                Nixon and Lee provide a review of the literature-to-date regarding rapid prototyping in instructional design.  They offer a nice list of tips and considerations for implementation of the model, while also discussing whether rapid prototyping may be considered a paradigm shift in instructional design.

Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x

                Rapid prototyping is mentioned but briefly in this qualitative evaluation of techniques that improve instructional design efficiency.  However, it is of interest to note how many of the other listed techniques are important components of the rapid prototyping model, reinforcing the idea that rapid prototyping stems from what designers are already doing.

Shih, W. C., Tseng, S. S., & Yang, C. T. (2007). Wiki-based rapid prototyping of teaching-material design in e-Learning grids. Computers & Education, 51, 1037-1057. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.10.007

                A technical paper with a fascinating concept, Shih, Tseng, and Yang propose rapid prototyping instructional design of teaching materials using grid computing and wikis.  Such a project would require a considerable database of existing material, but is an example of how wikis and information systems can be used to create instruction in the rapid prototyping model.

Tracey, M. W., & Unger, K. L. (2012). A design-based research case study documenting a constructivist ID process and instructional solution for a cross-cultural workforce. Instr Sci, 40, 461-476. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9184-3

                Herein is an instructional design case with many incumbent challenges arising from its population of multicultural learners, lack of available instructional resources, and time constraints.  Rapid prototyping provided a useful model for overcoming these challenges, allowing the team to create instruction that resulted in effective education.

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44.

                This, the seminal article in rapid prototyping in instructional design, describes the technique’s foundations in software design, and makes a strong case for its applicability in instructional design.  Tripp and Bichelmeyer present the model; and its philosophy, steps, and discipline; in a clear way that eases the reader toward implementation (available at http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/RapidPrototypingAnAlternativeInstructionalDesign.pdf).                

Web Resources

Cerejo, L. (2010, June 16). Design better and faster with rapid prototyping. Smashing. Retrieved from http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/06/16/design-better-faster-with-rapid-prototyping/

                Though not concerned with the model’s application in instructional design per se, Cerejo’s expanded blog post is a very good discussion of rapid prototyping in design, and is particularly useful in its treatment of the concept of fidelity.

Hoffman, J., & Margerun-Leys, J. (n. d.). Rapid prototyping as an instructional design. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmargeru/prototyping/

                In addition to containing a fine review of rapid prototyping, this page has many useful links to other pertinent websites, documents, and resources.

Instructional design/rapid prototyping plan. (2014, January 1). Retrieved August 16th, 2014 from the Wikiversity wiki: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Instructional_design/Rapid_prototyping_plan

                This informal but effective course in rapid prototyping instruction is well done, offering examples and opportunities for a student to exhibit his knowledge.

Instructional technology/instructional design/rapid prototyping. (2011, May 2). Retrieved August 16th, 2014 from the WikiBooks wiki: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Instructional_Technology/Instructional_Design/Rapid_Prototyping

                This is a review of rapid prototyping in instructional design with some useful elaboration on the methods that can be used and plenty of room for development (a potential rapid prototyping project, perhaps?).

Storyboard vs. rapid prototype [Message board thread].  Retrieved from http://community.articulate.com/forums/p/28710/155619.aspx

                This discussion board thread is very illustrative, as many instructional designers discuss how they use rapid prototyping in real-world situations.  

Thiagarajan, S. (1999). Rapid instructional design. Retrieved from http://www.thiagi.com/article-rid.html

                These are the notes from a seminar on rapid prototyping in instructional design that contains many helpful ideas about how, practically, to run such a design model.

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy [PowerPoint slides].  Retrieved from http://www.metu.edu.tr/~kursat/ceit420/week4-Rapid-prototype.ppt

                Interesting as an historical curiosity, but also for its illustrations and examples, this slideshow presents the slides used by the two pioneers in instructional design rapid prototyping from their early presentations.

UMBC Training Forum: Rapid instructional design with Thiagi [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYqm8ao1i2c

                Though over an hour in length, this video lecture by Sivasailam Thiagarajan, courtesy of the UMBC Training Forum, provides a wonderful discussion of rapid prototyping in instructional design.