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.