Reconceiving ISD: Three Perspectives on Rapid Prototyping as a Paradigm Shift.

Confronting recent design challenges, instructional designers have latched onto adaptive procedural techniques from outside the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) field. This discussion of rapid prototyping (RP) examines the perspectives of: (1) the prototype as the designer "s cognitive tool; (2) the designer.as co-inquirer; and (3) the practitioner as producer of knowledge. It brings to the foreground key issues often passed over in the discussion of instructional design models--the importance of knowledge derived in doing and the seldom-examined assumptions underlying a "scientific" approach to design. In RP, designers bring a product into being through the creation of successive prototypes. The intermediate prototypes become an important means of getting feedback as the design and development process become intertwined. Viewing RP as a "tool-for-thought" challenges the design/development hierarchy reflected in traditional instructional design models; the act of conceptualizing is integrated into the act of practice. When development is seen as "concrete knowing" or "bricolage," development can be elevated to the status that design now holds in the traditional view of ISD as "design, then development." The designer, in the act of doing, uses the prototype as a tool of inquiry and the hierarchical relationship between design and development is equalized. When rapid prototyping is viewed primarily as an inquiry tool that may be used collaboratively with nondesigners, the designer's responsibility is to support collaborative investigation. The highly iterative nature of RP involves frequent evaluation and revisiting of the problems addressed and created by the product under development. The mockup or prototype becomes the focal point for the group's critique, idea generation, and idea testing. (Contains 24 references.) (AEF) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Reconceiving ISD: Three Perspectives on Rapid Prototyping Paradigm Shift Gail A. Rathbun Indiana University Ron S. Saito CSU Northridge David A. Goodrum Indiana University as a U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. o Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Confronting recent design challenges, instructional designers have latched onto adaptive procedural techniques from outside the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) field. One of the most frequently mentioned is "rapid prototyping" (e.g., Jones, Li, & Merrill, 1992; Tessmer, 1994; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990), the iterative creation of partial products over the course of design and development. The importance of the notion of rapid prototyping to our field is not, however, as a technique to be adopted, but as a vehicle for understanding the instructional design/development process. Rapid prototyping (RP) brings to the foreground key issues often passed over in the discussion of instructional design models: the designer as inquirer and facilitator, the importance of knowledge derived "in" doing, and the seldom examined assumptions underlying a "scientific" approach to design. Prototype as the Designer's Cognitive Tool In rapid prototyping, designers bring a product into being through the creation of successive prototypes. The intermediate prototypes become an important means of getting feedback; the design and development process become intertwined. Rapid prototyping "provides the designer with concrete feedback in terms of the final product, as compared to the more abstract feedback provided by the standard products of analysis and design." (Jones, Li, & Merrill; 1992). Below the surface, however, rapid prototyping seems to support two very diverse orientations to design. The purpose of this section is to discriminate between two views of rapid prototyping one in which prototyping is a development technique and one in which rapid prototyping represents a distinct way of knowing and then to suggest how viewing the prototype as a tool-for-thought challenges the design/development hierarchy reflected in instructional design models. While rapid prototyping is said to offer more opportunities for feedback, earlier in the development process, exactly what constitutes feedback is not always specified. It's easy to think of feedback in instrumental terms: does the prototype work? Did it achieve the desired effect? However, we discriminate between two kinds of feedback, feedback gained from testers and feedback used by the designers themselves. In the case of the former, getting feedback is very much like a formative evaluation, defined by Dick and Carey (1996) as "the collection of data and information during the development of instruction which can be used to improve the effectiveness of the instruction." In the second case, however, when the prototype "talks back" to the designers themselves, the prototype being tested becomes a tool for thought and critical reflection. The idea of the prototype as an intimate mediator of immediate feedback follows philosopher Larry Briskman's work (1981) on creativity in science and art. He suggests that intermediary products (i.e., prototypes) are important because they serve as aids to the reflection/creation process. He writes: The artist must build up his painting gradually, stroke by stroke; while the theoretician must build up his conjectural explanation bit by bit (even though he may have got his explanatory 'core idea' in a flash). But if this is the case, then it is highly likely that the very thought processes of the artist or scientist will themselves be affected by the work done so far. In other words, the creator, in his very process of creation, is constantly interacting with his own products; and this interaction is one of genuine feedback, for the creator is as much influenced by his own initial creations as these were influenced by him.... If all this is correct, then it follows that we shall not be able to describe, let alone understand, BEST COPY AVAILA If E 291 2 "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY