Tripp and Bichelmeyer argue that rapid prototyping represents a paradigm shift in the nature and purpose of instructional design (40). They argue that rapid prototyping is more than simply an alternative approach to instructional design, but rather describes how design takes place and how designers can create learning environments. Tripp and Bichelmeyer identify four assumptions that support rapid prototyping as more than just an alternative model:
- There is a legitimate and important difference between science and design.
- It is possible to acquire specific knowledge of the world by using specific materials synthesized within the realm of design science.
- There is a fundamental difference between the meaning of validity when applied to design theories, as opposed to educational psychology.
- Human experience is a subjective entity and perfect objectivity is not achievable (41).
However, I would like to focus specifically on the first assumption—that there is a distinct difference between science and design—and the last assumption—that human experience is a subjective entity. These two assumptions recur in other alternative models that we discussed (including the R2D2 Model and Chaos Theory).
First, the authors identify the assumption that there is a distinct difference between science and design, emphasizing that design models should not be based upon the scientific method. Traditional models take a systems approach to design, simulating the scientific method, resulting in multiple versions of a standard decision sequence. These decisions are sequential, meaning one happens before another, and progress in a logical fashion. However, design is much more complex. Rapid prototyping embraces the complexity of design and provides an alternative approach to instructional design.
The authors also explore the assumption that human experience is a subjective entity and the perfect objectivity is not achievable. This is important in the field of instructional design, because it indicates that there is no one right way for learners or designers to interpret knowledge. Similarly, there is no one right model for instructional designers to follow—indicating the need for alternative models and their importance in the field of instructional design.
These two assumptions, as well as the others that Tripp and Bichelmeyer describe, are crucial for the future of the field of instructional design. As instructional designers embrace the complexity and subjective nature of learning, they must turn to alternative models of design, such as rapid prototyping.
References
Tripp, S. & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development. 38(1): 31-44.