Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design

Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design

CUIN 7347: Seminar in Learning Design and Technology

Instructor: Dr. Bulent Dogan

November 6, 2021
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 2

Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................................................3

Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design..............................................6

Speeding Up the Standard...................................................................................................6

Overcoming Limitations within Rapid Development......................................................9

Bridging the Learning Gap with Microlearnings.........................................................9

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................10

References..........................................................................................................................11
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 3

Introduction

Trainer. Curriculum developer. Instructional technologist. Implementation specialist. The

role of instructional designer cannot be defined by using a limited list of skillsets and the design

process itself can vary depending on the setting of the content being developed. Expectations for

curriculum creation in K-12 education are dependent on exacting standards from states and

districts, while many corporations rely on instructional designers for effective creation of content

to guide both internal and external stakeholders. Within the corporate environment, instructional

designers are expected to create quality, engaging content, oftentimes with key aspects of the

traditional design process incomplete or even missing altogether. Undefined audiences reduce

the ability to conduct prior knowledge assessments, creating an unknown when it comes to

establishing any knowledge gaps. Inconsistent evaluations limit the instructional designer’s

ability to provide adequate feedback on learners’ engagement and comprehension. With both

factors in mind, this literature review serves to review the process of rapid prototyping for

instructional design products, and to answer the question of: How can instructional designers

effectively and rapidly develop materials with reduced capabilities for needs analysis and

process evaluation?

To better explain my perspective, I chose this topic based on my experience as a contract

instructional designer operating within a team in a corporate environment at a global technology

company, developing both synchronous and asynchronous content for product support staff.

While my firsthand knowledge is limited to three years, I have a much deeper experience with

traditional education, including twelve years of public education and curriculum development for

foreign language classes at the high school level. Within my more recent experiences, I’ve

noticed that many companies tout their dedication to the ADDIE process when listing
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 4

requirements for job postings but seem to be lacking critical elements in practice. While

companies value the consistency that comes with carefully thought-out learning design, they are

often not willing to or capable of giving those developing the curriculum the appropriate insight

or adequate time to successfully do so. To better develop content at an expedited pace,

companies rely on Rapid Instructional Design (or Rapid Prototyping for instructional design).

This concept seems to diverge in some respects from both the SAM and ADDIE development

processes, but the fast-tracked timeline is necessary to meet corporate expectations.

I believe there is value in researching effective, rapid instructional design for a commercialized

training audience. With increased priorities on microlearnings and self-guided trainings, a fully

developed curriculum, with supporting documents, materials, and assessments, isn’t always

feasible. In studying this methodology, I hope to provide additional insight to the best practices

for rapid development with incomplete needs analyses, and explore principles related to adult

learning.

Keywords:

Below are some keywords that are used within the literature I reviewed:

 Agile learning—the application of Agile philosophies to the learning design

process; the iterative process that is traditionally used in software development

 Computer-based training—general term for any training or learning administered

by use of a computer

 Deliverables—measurable output that must be produced to complete the project

or training course; might include design documents and draft or final versions of

the curriculum
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 5

 Design document—an overarching, conceptual report that outlines the design of

the curriculum or course, including information about the learners, course

objectives, and outline of the content included

 Job aids—tools, devices, or instructions on how to do a work-related task that are

typically available to employees while on the job to increase their abilities

 Microlearning—training delivered in the form of short bursts of content for

learners to study at their own convenience; often does not use interactive

components as much as traditional eLearning courses

 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)—individuals who are knowledgeable in the

subject for which curriculum/content is being developed; collaborate with

instructional designers to verify accuracy of the content

Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design

Speeding Up the Standard

Instructional design as a theory has been around as long as there has been education, and

even outdates the traditional concept of a classroom. The way instruction is developed, however,

has undergone many transformations. Through the many iterations of curriculum design, many

instructional designers often revert to the traditional ADDIE method of analysis, design,

development, implementation, and evaluation. To argue that instructional design can follow more

rapid timelines such as software design, comparisons have been made to the iterative process,

known as the waterfall model. The ADDIE model coincides with several stages of the waterfall

model, which includes requirements analysis, design, development, implementation, verification,

and maintenance (Adnan and Ritzhaupt, 2018). Because the field of instructional design

continues to evolve with available educational technologies, it behooves instructional designers

to keep up with trends and studies that reflect current practices within the field. While the

concept is not new, rapid prototyping of instructional design is one way instructional designers

are able to meet company expectations with quick turnarounds and high expectations.

When considering costs, many companies and organizations forego the step of an

appropriate needs analysis as the associated cost is perceived as being too high (Lee, 2019). In

these situations, a job/task analysis is often replaced with an abbreviated learning analysis, which

consists of two parts: defining the training need, and establishing the learning outcomes

(Piskurich, 2015). In reducing the analysis to a bare minimum, the instructional designer can

collaborate with the business representative to determine which steps are necessary to include in

the program and more quickly begin designing the curriculum. By minimizing this key step,

however, the rapid process lends itself to a more design-forward approach that may negatively
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 7

affect project outcomes (Stefaniak et al., 2018). Luscinski takes this one step further to say that

the learner themselves must be acknowledged and affirmed to avoid feeling rejected (Luscinski,

2017).

To further expedite the development process, the design process itself is accelerated by

using simplistic design documents that address the reason behind the course, the learners, the

content, materials, those involved, and the delivery method (Piskurich, p. 145, 2015). Because of

the more iterative nature of rapid development, design must also take into consideration what is

in scope for that particular version of training. While it may be necessary to fully outline

corresponding tasks in traditional development, more detailed information is often left out due to

time constraints and the need to address it is re-assessed in the future. Design documents outline

key aspects of the curriculum and allow key points to be matched with measurable objectives to

serve as a structure for the training. The instructional designer is tasked with completing any

design documents, although the design process typically relies heavily on subject matter experts,

or SMEs. SMEs provide insight into the course content, identify references, offer up case studies,

and assist in the creation of learner-centered objectives to ensure accuracy (Piskurich p. 165,

2015). SMEs are also heavily involved in the development and implementation phases to verify

subject accuracy and offer reviews, as well as answer learner questions that may arise during the

training.

The actual development of the deliverables, including instructional materials may vary

but might include anything from a storyboard and script to standalone job aids. At this point in

the process, collaboration with subject matter experts ensures that the content is accurate, and

any ancillary resources may be provided to include or reference within the deliverables. Within

the development, the instructional designer must also consider the feasibility of use of the final
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 8

project depending on external constraints. Because of tight timelines, instructional designers are

often expected to be versed in recent trends and understand the constraints of the user

experience. When developing online content, it is often best to use independent (non-proprietary)

platforms that are compatible with mobile devices, personal computers, and tablets and that also

has a responsive design (Nor & Ritzhaupt, 2018). It is also important to keep in mind the

limitations of the learning management system, as the LMS might provide additional constraints.

The instructional designer must also consider existing content, including training material that

has already been developed, technical and quality control manuals, and, time permitting,

observation (Piskurich, p. 167).

Before implementing a lesson with the target learners, it is important that the deliverables

be tested for quality. Subject Matter Experts are typically involved in the review process within

both the design and development process, but quality can differ from one organization to the next

and from one instructional designer to the next. To fully ensure quality, the design is often tested

in both beta and pilots. Betas include instructional designers and evaluate the “viability of your

course before you actually implement it” (Piskurich, p. 263). Betas allow instructional designers

an additional review and the opportunity to make final changes before the training is delivered or

the self-guided training goes live. Within betas, IDs can also review the instructional plan to

verify that the sequencing is appropriate to accomplish the objectives. When considering e-

learning, this process might also consider web design review. University of Houston – Clear

Lake outlined matrices to verify quality of the online content, including best practices for user

design (Kidney, Cummings, & Bohm, 2007). Pilots, however, are used as a mock run-through

and the audience is the target audience for the training itself.
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 9

Within corporate instructional design, evaluation is often overlooked as many evaluations

rely on surveys. When relying on external learners for surveys of their opinion on the content,

responses are typically neglected, and honest responses are rarely given. Some successful studies

provide evidence that courseware can be designed to more fully evaluate results and course

success, with the data aggregation built in (Rowley, p. 441, 2005). The systems that do offer this

level of evaluation, however, are often cost prohibitive and are reserved for companies with more

robust budgets.

Overcoming Limitations within Rapid Development

While rapid development offers many benefits as far as cost is concerned, it does have

limitations. This manner of developing courses is a collaborative process and requires open and

efficient communication between instructional designers, stakeholders, and subject matter

experts. Rapid development relies heavily on the expertise of SMEs. While their expertise does

play a crucial part in the full development of course content, their closely tied relationship with

the content can often lead them to miss key factors and steps that might not be as evident to

someone with less experience.

One additional challenge within the rapid design process is overdevelopment—because

of the quantity of source materials that may be available, IDs may be tempted to continue to add

in content that is either unnecessary or out of scope. To ensure that content is concise and

accurate, rely on addressing the initial objectives and limit content to the information that will

allow the learners to master the objectives (Piskurich, p. 168).

Rapid development is contingent on the similarities between instructional design and

software design. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences. Piskurich

calls the method Rapid Instructional Design, but the more accurate description is Rapid
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 10

Prototyping of Instructional Design. By including the word “prototyping,” it is explicitly outlined

that the design, while complete by many standards, is still a prototype. Tripp and Bichelmeyer

counter Piskurich’s notion of rapid instructional design by saying, “prototyping may lead to a

premature commitment to a design if it is not remembered that a design is only a hypothesis”

(Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990). This highlights the fact that a full design is predicated on a full

front-end analysis, which is often left out of rapid design.

The review process also suffers with tight timelines. The instructional designer may

vocalize hard stops for the review process, but external stakeholders often prioritize their own

duties and either neglect to leave feedback or leave feedback after the curriculum has been

implemented. This causes the need for additional iterations and, while this is often the case

because of evolving product, the design ends up with more maintenance needs than originally

anticipated.

Bridging the Learning Gap with Microlearnings

To avoid the pitfalls of ever-evolving large-scale trainings, many companies rely on

microlearnings. Microlearnings are quickly digestible content with targeted, precise objectives

that allow learners to complete a task quickly. While these learnings do not replace support

documents, they are often delivered in rich media formats to allow the learner to grasp a

particular (often concrete) concept in a brief amount of time. These curricula can often meet the

tightened timelines needed for rapidly developed materials but are only suited for very specific

training needs.

Microlearnings allow learners to find the “how-to” in an oftentimes authentic manner, as

simulations and other media are often used. These types of learning can also allow for
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 11

gamification of content, increasing learner buy-in and adding to learner engagement (Andriotis,

2018). Additionally, microlearnings allow the learner to combat the forgetting curve by coming

back regularly to refresh their knowledge on the content. By using briefly formatted learning

content, there is also an increase in the immediacy of feedback. Emerson and Berge argue that

this further drives compliance by giving an increased sense of responsibility to the learners

(Emerson & Berge, 2018). While microlearnings are not likely to fully replace traditional

learning concepts, it does appear they will continue to increase in importance in the workplace.

Gaps in Research

In reviewing the various literature regarding rapid instructional design, I noticed that while there

is some data available for the efficacy of rapidly developed instructional design, the lack of

evaluation in many companies leaves large gaps in truly evaluating the overall cost/benefit

analyses. My literature review further shows that, while there is a primary source that many refer

to, the singularity of the Piskurich book as the go-to resource leads me to believe that many

companies depend on this method for expediency, while not realizing its potential downfalls.

Because many companies who rely on this method also have ample support staff, the data related

to success rates can be challenging to separate. The implication for further research in this field

is that because of the pandemic, many educators are transitioning to corporate instructional

design after experiencing a massive increase in work expectations (existing expectations in

addition to transitioning curriculum to the online classroom). Many teachers who have spent

years delivering, and developing, content and curriculum can more fully realize the correlation

between pedagogy and andragogy. In many interviews, companies often ask about familiarity

with adult learning theories. In my opinion, however, the larger adjustment is timeline in creation

of content in which they are not subject matter experts. With firsthand experience in the
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 12

classroom, most teachers are already comfortable with quickly developing materials with which

they are familiar, but working in tandem with someone to produce a curriculum on a tight

timeline can prove to be more challenging. An added reason for the necessity for more research

is that many competencies continue to evolve and the epistemiologies related to the design must

be taken into consideration when developing curriculum in a tone-neutral manner (Larson &

Lockee, 2004).

Conclusion

While the literature I reviewed all related to rapidly designed instructional content, there

were varying opinions about its efficacy. There are many factors to consider when using the

instructional design process, and many more factors that aren’t always delineated in a concrete

manner that is accessible to those wishing to enter the field of corporate instructional design.

When considering the rapid development process, companies should take into consideration that

for the training or curriculum to be fully valid, you cannot omit any part of the ADDIE process.

By leaving out front-end analysis, instructional designers are left with design-forward

deliverables that don’t fully account for the needs of the organization. Not taking into

consideration the evaluation of the final product or depending on external learners without

motivation to leave honest feedback leads the design to be dependent on beta tests or pilots.

From a company’s viewpoint, expediting the process might lead to a more quickly developed

final product, but the learners (and at times, the designer) experience the fallout from an

incomplete learning experience. In combining my personal learned experience with the

conclusions I gained from the literature review, those considering rapid prototyping for

instructional design should consider the following takeaways:

 Consider all factors when developing instructional content, by being as thorough in your

analyses as possible. Do not overlook the needs of the learners or constraints of the delivery

method.

 If possible, observation can act as a truly beneficial task analysis and give the instructional

designer a non-expert perspective.

 Not all content is intended for all delivery methods. Microlearnings can act as a stopgap for

concrete concepts, but they should not replace a fully developed curriculum.
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 14

References

 Andriotis, N. (2021, May 12). What Is Microlearning: A Complete Guide For Beginners.
Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/what-is-microlearning-benefits-best-
practices
 Emerson, L. C., & Berge, Z. L. (2018). Microlearning: Knowledge management
applications and competency-based training in the workplace. Knowledge Management
& E-Learning, 10(2), 125-132. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/scholarly-journals/microlearning-
knowledge-management-applications/docview/2121706902/se-2
 Kidney, G., Cummings, L., & Boehm, A. (2007). Toward a quality assurance approach to
E-learning courses. International Journal on ELearning, 6(1), 17-30. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/scholarly-journals/toward-quality-
assurance-approach-e-learning/docview/210362267/se-2?accountid=7107
 Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2004). Instructional design practice: Career
environments, job roles, and a climate of change. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 17(1), 22-40. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/scholarly-journals/instructional-design-
practice-career-environments/docview/218518692/se-2?accountid=7107
 Lee, J. (2019). Rapid needs assessment: An evidence-based model. European Journal of
Training and Development, 43(1), 61-75. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-08-2018-
0077
 Luscinski, A. (2017). Best practices in adult online learning (Order No. 10608529).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Publicly Available Content
Database. (1953258591). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/dissertations-theses/best-practices-adult-
online-learning/docview/1953258591/se-2
 Nor, H. A., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2018). Software engineering design principles applied to
instructional design: What can we learn from our sister discipline? TechTrends, 62(1),
77-94. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0238-5
 Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID Fast and Right, 3rd
Edition. John Wiley & Sons.
 Rowley, K. (2005). INQUIRY INTO THE PRACTICES OF EXPERT COURSEWARE
DESIGNERS: A PRAGMATIC METHOD FOR THE DESIGN OF EFFECTIVE
INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 419-
450. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.uh.edu/scholarly-journals/inquiry-into-practices-
expert-courseware/docview/743709090/se-2?accountid=7107
 Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., & Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived
constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 30(1), 55-71. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9173-5
 Tripp, Steven D., and Barbara Bichelmeyer. “Rapid Prototyping: An Alternative
Instructional Design ...” Researchgate.net, 1990,
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barbara-Bichelmeyer-2/publication/
225344439_Rapid_Prototyping_an_Alternative_Instructional_Design_Strategy/links/
Literature Review: Effective Use of Rapid Prototyping for Instructional Design 15

54ef35bd0cf2432ba65627c6/Rapid-Prototyping-an-Alternative-Instructional-Design-
Strategy.pdf.