Early Designs, Prototypes, and Learning Sequences for Exploration and Decision Making

  • Shalin Hai-Jew


During the early development phase, designers-developers may process the collected raw data and begin organizing the collected imagery; they may draft various learning objects, with full functionalities, in order to see how the objects look and how well the instantiated item compares with the original plan. They may experiment with item contents, sequencing, functions, style, and other features. This phase may be fleeting for some, but when observed with care, these processes may be informative to the ultimate project and beneficial to the learning. This chapter describes some ways to benefit from early designs and prototypes, to inform individuals of ways forward. After all, designs and plans look appropriate and clean and doable until they are tested in the real, and there are numerous discoveries to be made once the development work actually starts.


Early designs Prototyping Learning object design Learning sequence design 


Key Terms and Definitions


A silicon valley value to test new ideas quickly and identify quickly whether they will or will not work in order to advance to more constructive approaches


Management of a set or collection of object types


A preliminary version

Early designs

Any of an initial series of instantiated or expressed concepts for a particular (instructional) plan

Evolutionary prototype

An early design that evolves as understandings (of user needs, of technological contexts, and other information) change


An excellent or typical example

Learning object

A reusable component-based resource used for learning in different contexts

Paper prototyping

Using paper and pencil/pens for early designs comprised of drawings and text usually


The first of a type or form, a model, an archetype

Throwaway prototype

An initial design created for learning and not for implementation, available for discarding


A digital prototype (of a website, application, or software program) that enables some observable behaviors/functionality and structures that mimic a real object


“What You See is What You Get” as a kind of technological design interface for authoring


  1. Agustin M, Chuang G, Delgado A, Ortega A, Seaver J, and Buchanan JW. Game sketching. In the proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts (DIMEA ’07). Perth, Australia. Sept. 19 – 21, 2007. 36 – 43, 2007.
  2. Alavi M. An assessment of the prototyping approach to information systems development. Computing Practices 27: 556 - 563, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardzell J, Bardzell S, Briggs C, Makice K, Ryan W, and Weldon M. Machinima prototyping: An approach to evaluation. In NordiCHI 2006. Oslo, Norway. Oct. 14 – 18, 2006. 433 – 436, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Beaudouin-Lafon M, and Mackay W. Prototyping tools and techniques. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Ch. 52. 1006 - 1031, 2002. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  5. Berghel H. New wave prototyping: Use and abuse of vacuous prototypes. Interactions: 49 – 54, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bødker S, and Grønbæk K. Cooperative prototyping – Users and designers in mutual activity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1 – 23, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Boulet G. Rapid prototyping: An efficient way to collaboratively design and develop e-learning content. Navy e-learning center of excellence. 1 – 6, 2009.
  8. Buchenau M, and Suri J.F. Experience prototyping. DIS ’00. Brooklyn, New York. 424 – 433, 2000.
  9. Christensen TK, and Osguthorpe RT. How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly 17: 45 – 65, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark RC, and Mayer RE. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 4th Ed. Wiley. 1 – 528, 2016.Google Scholar
  11. Daugherty J, Teng Y-T, and Cornachione E. Rapid prototyping instructional design: Revisiting the ISD model. 1 – 8, 2007.
  12. Desrosier J. Rapid Prototyping Reconsidered. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 59: 135-145, 2011. Scholar
  13. Devedžić V, Jovanović J, and Gašević D. The pragmatics of current e-learning standards. IEEE Internet Computing. 16 – 24, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas I. Instructional design based on reusable learning objects: Applying lessons of object-oriented software engineering to learning systems design. In the proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Oct. 10 – 13, 2001. Reno, Nevada. F4E-1 – F4E-5, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas I. Issues in software engineering of relevance to instructional design. TechTrends 50 28 – 35, 2006. Scholar
  16. Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J, Schwarz M, Schwartz DL, and Klemmer SR. Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact 17: 4, 1 – 24, 2010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edelson DC. Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11: 105 – 121, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehlers U-D. Extending the territory: From open educational resources to open educational practices. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning: 15, 2011.Google Scholar
  19. Gayeski DM. Out-of-the-box instructional design. Training & Development 52: 36+, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. Gustafson KL, and Branch RM. Revisioning models of instructional development. Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D) 45: 73- 89, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harding D, and Ingraham B. The art of design. Ch. 11. In H. Beetham and R. Sharpe’s Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and Delivering E-Learning. Routledge. 142 – 152, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Harvey B. 49. Learning Objects and Instructional Design. Technical evaluation reports. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 6: 2007.Google Scholar
  23. Holder D. Instructional design strategy for achieving alignment: Which comes first, activities or assessments? E-Learning 2013.
  24. Hounde S, and Hill C. What do prototypes prototype? In M. Helander, T. Landauer, P Prabhu (eds.): Elsevier Science. Amsterdam. 1 – 16, 1997. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
  25. Jones MK, Li Z, and Merrill MD. Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) 40: 95 – 100, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones TS, and Richey, RC. Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) 48: 63 – 80, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joseph PB, Bravmann SL, Windschitl MA, Mikel ER, and Green NS. Cultures of Curriculum. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Kabisch E, and Williams A. Vice interfaces. In the proceedings of TEI 2012. Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Feb. 19 – 22, 2012. 343 – 346., 2012Google Scholar
  29. Leacock TL, and Nesbit JC. A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology & Society 10: 44 – 59, 2007.Google Scholar
  30. “Learning object”. Wikipedia. Dec. 19, 2017.
  31. Lim Y-K, Stolterman E, and Tenenberg J. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 15: 7:1-7:27, 2008. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lohr LL. Designing the instructional interface. Computers in Human Behavior 16: 161 – 182, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malopinsky L, Kirkley J, Stein R, and Duffy T. An instructional design model for online problem based learning (PBL) environments: The Learning to Teach with Technology Studio. In Annual Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology: 1-2. Denver, CO. Oct. 25 – 28, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. McDonald JK. The creative spirit of design. TechTrends 55: 53 – 57, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McLoughlin C. Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education 22: 7 – 29, 2001. Scholar
  36. Moustakis C. Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology, and Applications. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. 1990.Google Scholar
  37. Petre M. Mental imagery and software visualization in high-performance software development teams. Jrn of Visual Languages and Computing 21: 171 – 183, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petrelli D, Dulake N, Marshall M, Willox M, Caparrelli F, and Goldberg R. Prototyping tangibles: Exploring form and interaction. In 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI’14). Feb. 16 – 19, 2014. Munch, Germany. 41 – 48, 2014.Google Scholar
  39. Pniewska J, Adrian WT, and Czerwoniec A. Prototyping – Is it a more creative way for shaping ideas. In MIDI ’13. June 24 – 25, 2013. Warsaw, Poland. 1 – 8, 2013.Google Scholar
  40. Ramesh A, Goldwasser D, Huang B, Daumé III H, and Getoor L. Uncovering hidden engagement patterns for predicting learner performance in MOOCs. Atlanta, Georgia. Mar. 4 – 5, 2014. In L@S 2014. 157 – 158, 2014.Google Scholar
  41. Rawsthorne P. Agile methods of software engineering should continue to have an influence over instructional design methodologies. Cape Breton University & Memorial University of Newfoundland. Research paper. 1 – 14, 2005.Google Scholar
  42. Reeves TC. Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through ‘design experiments’ and other development research strategies. In International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century. SIG/Instructional Technology at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, Louisiana. 1 – 15, 2000.Google Scholar
  43. Reeves TC, Herrington J, and Oliver R. Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16: 96 – 115, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richey RC and Klein JD. Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16: 23 – 38, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rico J, and Brewster S. Gesture and voice prototyping for early evaluations of social acceptability in multimodal interfaces. In the proceedings of ICMI-MLMI’10. Nov. 8 – 10, 2010. Beijing, China. 1 – 8, 2010.Google Scholar
  46. Rodriguez CO. MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 1 – 13, 2013.Google Scholar
  47. Rowland G. What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly 5: 65 – 86, 1992. Scholar
  48. Rowland G, and DiVasto T. Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly 26: 9 – 42, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roytek MA. Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology 41: 170 – 180, 2010. Scholar
  50. Sefelin R, Tscheligi M, and Giller V. Paper prototyping – What is it good for? A comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping. In CHI 2003 New Horizons. Apr. 5 – 10, 2003. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 778 – 779, 2003.Google Scholar
  51. Sims R, and Jones D. Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptulaizing instructional design for online learning. In Winds of change in the sea of learning: Proceedings of the 19 th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Auckland, New Zealand. Dec. 8 – 11, 2002. UNITEC Institute of Technology. ASCILITE. 1 – 10, 2002.
  52. Soto VJ. Which instructional design models are educators using to design virtual world instruction? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 9: 1 – 11, 2013.Google Scholar
  53. Surry DW, and Farquhar JD. Incorporating social factors into instructional design theory. In M. Bailey, & M. Jones, (Eds.) Work, Education, and Technology: 6.1-6.8, 1996. DeKalb, IL: LEPS Press.Google Scholar
  54. Swirski T. Unleashing the imagination in learning, teaching and assessment: Design perspectives, innovative practices and meaning making. ATN Assessment Conference. Australia. Retrieved from 2010.
  55. Tripp SD, and Bichelmeyer B. Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development 38: 31 – 44, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tuch AN, Roth SP, Hornbӕk K, Opwis K, and Bargas-Avila JA. Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in HCI. Computers in Human Behavior 28: 1596 – 1607, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaidyanathan J, Robbins JE, and Redmiles DF. Using HTML to create early prototypes. In CHI 99. May 15 – 20, 1999. 232 – 233, 1999.Google Scholar
  58. Van Rooij SW. Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational Technology 41: 852 – 864, 2010.Google Scholar
  59. Visscher-Voerman I, and Gustafson KL. Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research & Design (ETR&D) 52: 69 – 89, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson B, Jonassen D, and Cole P. Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G.M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology. New York: McGraw Hill. 21.1 - 21.22, 1993.Google Scholar
  61. Yanchar SC, and Gabbitas BW. Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Education Tech Research Dev 59: 383 – 398, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yeung L, Plimmer B, Lobb B, and Elliffe D. Levels of formality in diagram presentation. In the proceedings of OzCHI 2007 Proceedings. Nov. 28 – 30, 2007. Adelaide, Australia. 311 – 317, 2007.Google Scholar

Additional Reading Section

  1. Budhai SS, and Skipwith KB. Best Practices in Engaging Online Learners through Active and Experiential Learning Strategies. New York: Routledge. 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Clark RC, and Mayer RE. E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 4th Ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Dirksen J. Design for How People Learn. 2nd Ed. London: New Riders, Peachpit Press, Pearson Education. 2016.Google Scholar
  4. Moustakis C. Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology, and Applications. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalin Hai-Jew
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Technology Services (ITS)Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations