practical guidance for application of rapid prototyping ... · tripp and bichelmeyer (1990) using...
Post on 04-Oct-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Running Head: RAPID PROTOTYPING 1
Practical Guidance for Application of Rapid Prototyping
Viki R. Gossen
Purdue University
September 2013
RAPID PROTOTYPING 2
Abstract
Following an ADDIE-based instructional design model results in well-designed
instruction, but has inefficiencies. Dick, Carey, and Carey (2009) instruct to trust the model, but
also warn it “implies a strict linear process flow, but any experienced instructional designer will
attest that in practice the process can sometimes look more like the circular, continuous
improvement model…in multiple cycles of simultaneous activities” (p. 4).
A method to respond to interim evaluations during the planning of design is proposed by
Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) using rapid prototyping, applying concepts from software
development to instructional design. This can be a means to more efficiently develop effective
instruction.
This paper provides a clear description of the process of rapid prototyping. Analysis of
case studies identifies practical factors for application. These factors are provided as guidance for
use by instructional designers intending to incorporate rapid prototyping in a project.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 3
Practical Guidance for Application of Rapid Prototyping
Introduction
Designing instruction is a complex task. The process to consider numerous variables and
address them with relevant instruction is fraught with complications. Models for instructional
design (ID) provide prescriptive approaches. Many follow a linear sequence incorporating the
core steps of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). Botturi,
Canotini, Lepori, and Tardini (2008) find that classic ID models offer clear guidance, but are
based on unrealistic assumptions. More recent models incorporate the design elements as a
process of progressive discovery, instead of linear steps. These are more flexible but provide too
little guidance (Botturi et al., 2008, pp. 1017-1019).
An alternative ID model is provided by Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990). They distinguish
between the approaches used to develop solutions used by scientists and designers. Scientists
fundamentally cover each step. Instead, Tripp and Bichelmeyer follow the methods of designers,
noting software developers have similar challenges to those of ID professionals. Software
developers begin with rough models, or prototypes, which progress through iterations of
feedback and improvement. This concept holds promise for ID. Tripp and Bichelmeyer define
rapid prototyping in this way, “As with software development, rapid prototyping in instructional
systems design is the building of a model of the system to design and develop the system itself”
(p. 36). This flexible definition leaves the practitioner to consider what rapid prototyping can be
for their course of interest, and the definition can be applied to a specific topic or to a broad
scope of an entire instructional program.
Piskurich (2009) makes an observation about rapid prototyping, considering it:
RAPID PROTOTYPING 4
one of those slippery concepts that sounds like a good idea when someone talks about it
generally, but when it comes down to actually explaining how to do it, you find it
difficult to express… That is not to say it isn’t a good idea; it is, but it’s just sort of hard
to describe. The theory behind rapid prototyping is to recognize that your end-product is
simply too complicated to try to make it perfect the first time … or even the third.
Instead, do a quick example of what you are planning to accomplish and see how the
decision-makers and others react to it (p. 11).
This definition, while less formal, clarifies what it means to use rapid prototyping.
A benefit of iterations discussed by Wilson, Jonassen, and Cole (1993) is the progression
of formative evaluations. The review of an early prototype by an expert elucidates weaknesses in
the course form and content. The revision incorporating input from the expert is tested in small
group trials to gain learner perspective. Finally, a target audience evaluates the nearly complete
product in the context of the learner (Wilson, Jonassen, & Cole, 1993). These are all
opportunities for communicating with stakeholders, trialing creative solutions, and involving
learners appropriately, including ensuring objectives are fully considered.
An ID professional seeks an efficient process for development that incorporates clear
communication and that results in a satisfactory product. Can rapid prototyping maintain its
benefits of flexibility and yet be established as a process?
Rapid Prototyping as a Process
Rapid prototyping emphasizes concurrent activities, as shown conceptually in the
comparison between classic ID models and rapid prototyping (see Figure 1).
RAPID PROTOTYPING 5
Figure 1. Classic ID models emphasize front-end analysis while rapid protoyping emphasizes
concurrent design and research. (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990, pp. 35-36)
Desrosier (2011) references a rapid prototyping process model that includes the concurrent
activities, but makes the iterative nature more apparent. The iteration loop includes revisiting the
objectives and front-end assessment (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Rapid prototyping model revision emphasizes revisiting even the needs assessment.
(Desrosier, 2011, p. 139)
The loop back to the earliest step “advocates a profound shift away from the conquer-the-
objective mentality of historical ID and toward discovering precisely what it is the designer is
trying to accomplish” (p. 138). Revisiting the needs and objectives allows stakeholders to adjust
objectives as their vision becomes more concrete.
A schematic model that clarifies the process cycles by Botturi et al. (2008) is in use at the
eLab of University of Lugano in Switzerland, where it is termed “fast prototyping” (see Figure
3).
RAPID PROTOTYPING 6
Figure 3: eLab Fast prototyping at University of Lugano. (Botturi, Canotini, Lepori, Tardini,
2008, p. 1021)
This model includes the iterative rounds of prototyping, the “product cycle,” and shows that
successful completion of a product cycle allows progression of the “process cycle” to put the
resulting product into use. It can include the continual upgrade of the instructional design, and it
can be incorporated within other models. This model would be improved by including a review
back to the definition of goals and strategy, as this is not shown in the diagram.
Botturi et al. (2008) state “The originality of the approach lies in considering fast
prototyping as a communication catalyst: The main advantage…is to enhance discussion in the
team in a focused way by concentrating on facts and results and not on theories or prejudices
about learning technologies” (p. 1020). Communication is emphasized in their goals.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 7
1. To make the design and development process flexible with respect to ideas
emerging from the progressive understanding of the project among team
members, by providing moments in which new inputs can be taken into account.
2. To make the design and development process adaptable to new needs emerging
from tests and results, given that the use scenario is varied (multiple institutions),
partly undefined (e.g., changes in curricula because of higher education reforms),
and not available in detail at the outset of the project.
3. To allow teachers, instructors, and subject matter experts to focus on the teaching
and learning activities and not on the technologies themselves, fostering
trialability.
4. To enhance communication with external partners (p. 1020).
Piskurich (2009) notes, “Rapid prototyping will also keep you out of the ‘blame game’ that often
occurs at the end of an asynchronous development when the client or stakeholder sees a finished
product that was not at all what he visualized when you had your first meeting. This saves not
only time and money, but reputations as well” (p. 54).
Rapid prototyping can be used within other ID processes. Examination of a variety of
applications of rapid prototyping can identify factors that improve the success of the process, and
also point out pitfalls that must be avoided to achieve the intended benefits of efficiency,
improved communication, and stakeholder satisfaction.
Case Studies
The review of examples of course development includes a variety of rapid prototyping
projects and focuses on the issues that stand out for promoting or hindering successful
RAPID PROTOTYPING 8
implementation. The first cases are the college courses designed by Botturi et al.’s eLab team,
including their lessons learned. A case examining use in a primary school setting provides a
different perspective. Finally, a case to create a performance support system for teachers is
reviewed as an example of a project with high complexity.
eLab Fast Prototyping of Three University Courses In Switzerland (Botturi et al., 2008)
The model by Botturi et al. (2008) discussed earlier and shown in Figure 3 was used in
creating three college courses. The key issues encountered with each course are presented below.
A list of lessons learned by the eLab team is useful for the instructional designer to keep in mind.
Ecology in architectural design: Reigning in the SMEs. This first case shows a
downside to the avoidance of “long and useless discussions focused only on abstract ideas about
e-learning” (p. 1022). They experienced a drawback of “focusing on specific details and losing
touch with higher-priority issues” (p. 1022). The project remained on track, but only with the
intervention of the project manager to define roles more restrictively, focusing the SMEs on
content issues only. Some discussion of e-learning up front may have been useful after all.
Fundamentals of color: Conflict within an ID team. The first lesson prototype was not
well received. “The prototype immediately acted as a fuse in a powder keg. Facing a concrete
object, the project partners made their thoughts clear and hidden misunderstandings emerged at
once…such as the division of work, the assignment of tasks, the future use of course, and so on”
(Botturi et al., 2008 p. 1023). The article speculates that this conflict prevented delays.
However, two months to gain agreement about the goals and roles resulted in conflict that could
have been prevented by having team members in agreement prior to beginning a prototype.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 9
Argumentation theory e-course: Successful Communication. The eLab team
successfully avoided the pitfalls of the first two projects. The project leaders shared the concepts
with the SMEs and received buy-in for participation in rapid prototyping development.
e-Lab lessons learned. Botturi et al. (2008) conclude with these lessons.
“Fast prototyping costs.” (p. 1024) The team must be prepared to discard work
that is rejected upon trial. Establishing the level of refinement expected in a
prototype is an agreement to make early on.
“…the choice of fast prototyping itself has to be negotiated and shared among
team members” (p. 1025).
For team members involved in course development, “fast prototyping provides
them with a common language and an initial experience of e-learning” (p. 1025).
This improves the competency of the team members.
The eLab model and goals are practical references to take away from this extensive review.
Software to Support Spelling Development (Brown, Green, Yopp, & Yopp, 2005)
Most examples of rapid prototype development are for instruction of adults, but there are
examples for elementary students. A collaboration to develop spelling software for fourth and
fifth grade students began with SME’s using colored pencils to sketch ideas for spelling
activities. These ideas were replicated digitally. Testing with students provided creative ideas
such as effective iconic images (p. 78). Once the software was nearing implementation,
computer experts tested the software. They discovered simple moves a student might make that
would break the software (p. 78). This review allowed corrections to prevent students from
encountering technical difficulties. Testing even lower technology aspects proved beneficial.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 10
Teachers’ Performance Support System (PSS) for Classroom Behavior Management
(Hung, Smith, Harris, & Lockard, 2010)
Classroom behavior issues are unpredictable. This instruction enables teachers to identify
appropriate solutions. The instruction includes an advance organizer, a decision matrix, and
information mapping. The team was mindful of a theory-based design approach to ensure
success. After initial instruction, these materials became the teachers’ toolbox.
Early prototypes were developed on storyboards. SME’s established the key points that
would prioritize resource allocations. Functional prototypes were developed. Volunteers tested
these for “ease of learning, efficiency, memorability, and subject satisfaction” (p. 73). Usability
tests revealed a need for improved interaction with the search and help functions. Volunteers for
implementation were divided into groups led by a clinical psychologist, who informed the
development team of issues and ideas for improvement of the design.
This project for a PSS was well suited to use of rapid prototyping in development. The
instruction addresses a teacher’s response to an ill-defined situation and calls for multiple
approaches to provide meaningful guidance. Previous instruction had not been effective, so novel
approaches which required testing and multiple revisions were useful.
Emerging Application for Rapid Prototyping
Rapid prototyping is proving useful in emerging areas of instructional design as well. For
example, rapid digital game creation is of interest for serious gaming for instructional purposes
(Dalal, 2012). It is a natural fit for rapid prototyping as it is an offshoot of software development.
Dalal (2012) found that using rapid prototyping as a means to teach development of software
requirements and specification is “innovative, instructive, and entertaining” (p. 344). His
RAPID PROTOTYPING 11
methods are not intended to remove foundational concepts and projects, but as an example to
spur creative ideas.
Guidance for Rapid Prototype Implementation
Rapid Prototyping Foundation: Begin with a Practical Model
The ID professional considering rapid prototyping should review the eLab Model and
goals presented by Botturi et al. (2008) to communicate the process flow to potential team
members. The diagram showing the iterative product cycle occurring within a process cycle
makes it flexible to fit within other models that an ID professional may be comfortable using. An
additional arrow is needed to depict opportunities for revision of goals.
Rapid Prototyping Foundation: Set Team Goals That Emphasize Communication
The rapid prototype goals from the eLab project include instructional development, but
emphasize the process as a “communication catalyst” (Botturi, p. 1020). This addresses the
common thread through the case studies that having a concrete product provided the opportunity
for better collaboration and resulted in higher customer satisfaction. One example is the
development of instructional material for teachers to address behavior issues in the classroom
(Hung et al., 2010). Deliberate development and evaluation through six phases is rigorous, but it
addresses a complex topic in a way teachers could apply with confidence.
Project Team Initial Formation: Recruit a Strong Leader, and Foster Team Buy-In
Rapid prototyping projects provide opportunities for team members to try new ideas. The
team must buy in to the approach and have an open attitude for giving and receiving critical
feedback on unpolished prototypes. The project leadership must establish expectations, including
RAPID PROTOTYPING 12
type of feedback required, prototype milestones, and expectations for level of refinement. Rapid
prototyping success factors identified by Collis and de Boer (1998) in their TeleTOP project list
as number one the “Administrative vision, leadership, and courage” (p. 119) and also include
“Staff engagement and commitment” (p. 119). Without these factors the project will include
more frustration than professional growth.
Progression of Prototypes and Trial Feedback: Set a Purpose for Each Iteration
The first round of idea generation should be in a format all team members can readily
use. Then the ID professional develops a storyboard or presentation that reflects these ideas. This
conceptual review provides necessary guidance for the development of the prototype using the
media chosen for the final instruction. The prototype in the media for final instruction is first
reviewed by the team for functionality. After revision, it is provided to target learners, eventually
in the learning context. A useful step is a challenge by software experts to identify and address
weaknesses. The cycles can continue post-implementation, for course upgrades or for adaptation
to similar modules of instruction.
Conclusion
The experiences shared in case studies provide common threads of successes and pitfalls.
The useful approaches are identified and presented as guidance for a successful project team.
This guidance includes beginning with a common foundation of process knowledge and team
goals, and then following a sequence of cycles. Stakeholders including learners are included in a
logical sequence of refinement.
In the case studies explored, the benefits are stronger for improving the product quality
than for expediting the development. Future direction for research should include comparison of
RAPID PROTOTYPING 13
a rapid prototype project with a control project that is similar, accounting for team members’
time on the project. A summative assessment of the delivered project that was developed using
rapid prototyping versus the control project would provide a comparison of benefits of each
approach. The decision of which version of the project to carry forward is a clear indicator of the
more successful approach.
Studies to establish baseline methods for efficiency would be useful. A study to optimize
the level of prototype refinement should be made to explore the tradeoff of time spent
developing prototypes versus the resulting course effectiveness. Similarly, determining the
number of iterations for projects of similar complexity would be useful in defining how many
prototypes are enough for the initial implementation. There may be diminishing returns beyond a
few iterations. Understanding the relationship between the prototype efforts and the success of
the delivered course in meeting objectives would establish the most efficient prototyping
methods.
Rapid prototyping is flexible and useful for improved communication. The adoption of
the method will become more widespread as practitioners gain a clearer understanding of
elements that lead to a successful result and practical guidelines for implementation.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 14
References
Botturi, L., Canotini, L., Lepori, B., Tardini, S. (2008). Chapter 2.22 Fast prototyping as a
communication catalyst for e-learning design. In L. Tomei, Online and distance learning:
Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1014-1027). Hershey, NY:
Information Science Reference.
Brown, A., Green, T., Yopp, H. K., & Yopp, R. H. (2005). Software to support spelling
development: An instructional media design project. TechTrends: Linking Research &
Practice to Improve Learning, 49(4), 75-79.
Collis, B. A., & de Boer, W. F. (1998). Rapid prototyping as a faculty-wide activity: An
innovative approach to the redesign of courses and instructional methods at the university
of twente. Educational Media International, 35(2), 117-121.
Dalal, N. (2012). Using rapid game prototyping for exploring requirements discovery and
modeling. Journal of Information Systems Education, 23(4), 341-344.
Desrosier, J. (2011). Rapid prototyping reconsidered. The Journal of Continuing Higher
Education, 59, 135-145.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7 ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hung, W., Smith, T. J., Harris, M. S., & Lockard, J. (2010). Development researh of a teacher'
educational performance support system: The practices of design, development, and
evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development(58), 61-80.
Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental
study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(2), 63-80.
Merrill, D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Piskurich, G. M. (2009). Rapid Training Development: Developing Training Courses Fast and
Right. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology (3 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stephens, R., & Richey, M. (2011). Accelerating STEM capacity: A complex adaptive sytem
perspective. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 417-423.
RAPID PROTOTYPING 15
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative Instructional Design
Strategy. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.
Wilson, B., Jonassen, D., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G.
M. Piskurich, The ASTD handbook of instructional technology (pp. 1-21). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
top related