Agile Instructional Development Framework: Strategies for Increasing
Learner and Instructional Designer Collaboration
Sharon Bratt
Grant Macewan University
Abstract: This research reports the results of single exploratory case study in which
selected components of the Agile Instructional Development (AIDev) Framework
are observed in the context of an actual agile instructional development project. The
framework is in what Jabardeen has identified as Phase: 7 Validating the conceptual
framework in conceptual framework analysis. This phase addresses whether the
proposed framework makes sense to other scholars and practitioners (Jabardeen,
2009). Jabardeen recommends dissemination of the framework to an academic
audience for discussion and feedback. Several strategies to support the learner’s role
as co-designer are identified and summarized. This study concludes with implication
for practice and recommendations for future research to validate the efficacy of these
strategies.
Introduction
“I think being a co-designer of a course is a great way to be really involved in the work that is
done. I am a believer that the best results are produced when a person is committed to a project
and they include a part of themselves into it. I don't see being a co-designer as a burden or as a lot
of extra work, I see it as an opportunity to be creative and to come up with something unique.”
--Study participant
Basic research proposes new theories, frameworks and models in order to scaffold and guide emerging
research as it matures in its field. The creation of a new research tool –such as a conceptual framework -- holds the
promise of extending current knowledge or creating new knowledge based on the data derived from the application
of that tool. However, such tools must undergo a validation process to support the tool’s claims of rigour and
suitability to task. The recently created Agile Instructional Development (AIDev) Framework (Bratt, 2011) which is
intended to support efficiency while fostering pedagogical excellence in the design of instruction according to
principles of agile software development is in what Jabardeen has identified as Phase :7 Validating the conceptual
framework in conceptual framework analysis. This phase addresses whether the proposed framework makes sense to
other scholars and practitioners (Jabardeen, 2009). Jabardeen recommends dissemination of the framework to an
academic audience for discussion and feedback.
The next step in this research agenda is to validate the agile ID conceptual framework in order to judge the
applicability of its dimensions, their descriptions and illustrative strategies.
The goal of this study is to continue the validation process by identifying and defining new strategies to
increase learner and instructional designer collaboration –a component of the AIDev framework (see
Table 1) by involving the learner as co-designer. This research reports the results of single exploratory case
study in which selected components of the framework are observed in the context of an actual agile instructional
development project.
Table 1:
Learner and instructional designer collaboration principles
Agile ID Principles
Instructional Design Process
Components
Learner and instructional designer collaboration
Design model (approach)
 Involve instructors and learners in the
requirements activities
Instructional design team
member roles
 Place client on design team
 Ensure client representative is on-site full-time
Instructional design
processes
 Use rapid prototyping methodologies with new
clients to provide appearance prototypes
 Test design with potential learners
Instructional design tools
--
The results of this research will be of use to several ID stakeholder groups including instructors and
designers of instruction as a method of improving their practice, ID development project managers interested in
agile methodologies and learners, who are the real consumers of these education products. The validation of the
AIDev Framework is the next step toward developing a body of research around first principles and best practices as
this methodology matures in its field and its impact is felt in the classroom.
Background to the Agile Instructional Development (AIDev) Framework
Instructional development (ID) practitioners have shown a growing interest in the use of agile
methodologies which have been popularized by the software development industry with the intent to gain
efficiencies and produce more effective solutions. The goal of this research is to determine if agile methods can be
applied to instructional development.
ID and software development involve similar processes (analysis, design, development and evaluation); thus ID has
historically adapted software development methodologies to develop their products. (Douglas, 2006; (Rawsthorne,
2005) The popularity of agile methods in the past decade has captured the interest of instructional designers
dissatisfied with the constraints of their linear, process-oriented development models. Traditional instructional
design models which are variations on the well-known ADDIE framework (Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation, and Evaluation) have been challenged for their inability to meet contemporary learning needs in
both business and education. These fundamentally linear models have been criticized for being ineffective and
inefficient, and inflexible and outdated. (Gordon & Zemke, 2000; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990; Willis, 1995) A
growing interest in “Agile” over traditional methods has resulted in the adoption of these methodologies.
Unfortunately these changes in ID practices have outpaced fundamental academic research to guide and inform their
development. Given the growing interest in agile methods it would be beneficial to frame agile instructional
development in order to facilitate meaningful discussion among researchers and practitioners around first principles
and best practices as this methodology matures in its field and its impact is felt in the classroom. Such a framework
that explicitly integrates the learner (and instructor) into the agile ID process has been recently created as illustrated
in
Appendix A and is the focus of this case study in which selected concepts and processes associated with
learner and instructional designer collaboration will be observed in the context of an actual agile instructional
development project and modified as needed, based on new insights.
Research Design
Context
It is important in case study research to accurately describe the context of the case under investigation so
that others may replicate the study or create different research designs to test other theories underlying the case
study. In this case, client – designer collaboration is central to the practice of agile instructional development in
which the learner is the client. This collaboration may be characterized in multiple ways depending on the scope of
the project and the roles of the stakeholders. For example, does the project involve one instructor working with one
instructional designer? Or are several involved? Is the instructor also the instructional designer? Is the project
limited to the design of a single course or an entire curriculum? Is the mode of delivery traditional or e-learning? Is
the learner also considered the client in the context of the instructional development project? This case study defines
the learner as the client and the course instructor as the instructional designer. The application of agile instructional
development was limited to the design of one course project to be completed within a 12 week academic term in a
traditional classroom. The instructor had no prior experience with agile instructional development but was interested
in involving the learner in the design of the course on an on-going basis.
The following sections describe a single exploratory case study based on a post-secondary course called
The Phenomenology of Technology. Two important features of the course determined its selection for use in this
study. First, it was a brand new course therefore the instructor was open to the idea of developing the course as the
term progressed. Second, the low course enrolment (7 students) was suitable for encouraging learner participation as
co-designers.
The course, offered by the institution’s computing science department, included a seminar component
which was developed and implemented using agile instructional development processes with a specific focus on the
role of the learner as co-designer responsible for making project design decisions and providing feedback to the
instructor to guide project requirements. The case study used survey methodology to identify and define new
strategies to support learner-designer collaboration which is a component of the AIDev Framework.
Research Method
Yin recommends the use of case study methods when seeking to answer why or how; when the researcher
has little control over events; and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon rather than historical. (2003)
The purpose of this study is to apply selected processes identified in the AIDev Framework to the development of a
post-secondary course in computing science in order to:
1. Identify issues which impede the use of agile instructional development processes using one instantiation of
the framework.
2. Provide prescriptive methods for involving the learner in the AIDev process.
3. Test the theory that instructional design processes can be successfully adapted from agile development
methods.
This study seeks to answer how learners can be supported in their role as co-designers. The phenomenon is
the instantiation of AIDev; the researcher has minimal control over events
Participants
Learner feedback is central to agile methods therefore incenting participation is a critical component in the
design of the course. Participants were required to complete three web-based questionnaires at regular intervals
during the semester as part of their course requirement.
Permission was granted by the course instructor to invite students enrolled in a 2nd year post-secondary
course in computing science to participate in the study. This sample was selected based on their enrolment in a
brand new course which was highly suitable for this AIDev methodology which endeavors to include learners in the
course development throughout the duration of the course. Students were provided with a consent form outlining the
goals of the study and their role as participants.
Each questionnaire consisted of both Likert-type items as well as comments to provide a brief explanation
of their Likert-type response. Participant anonymity was ensured by limiting access to the feedback forum to the
research team.
Data Collection
Yin (2003) identifies six sources of evidence that can be collected during case studies. Physical artifact,
artifacts, archival records, interviews, documentation, direct observation, and participant-observation. Yin
recommends the use of multiple data sources to strengthen validity. However the exploratory and descriptive nature
of this preliminary study suggested that the data sources be limited to survey data in order to determine goodness of
fit of the framework and to use the data to guide future research. Therefore the study collected data using three
surveys consisting of both Likert-type items as well as open-ended questions.
Collaboration with all stakeholders is a key principle in agile development therefore an initial presentation
by the researcher and course instructor was given in order provide an overview of the study including its purpose,
description of agile principles and methods, and the central role that learners occupy in adapting the course’s design
to meet their learning requirements. The aim of the presentation was to foster collaboration and encourage
participants to provide feedback to improve the course design based on their expressed needs.
The focus of the agile instructional development methodology was the course’s seminar component. The
seminar component required students to conduct a phenomenological study on an individual of their choice to
determine the impact of technology on their personal, social and/or professional life. Results of the research were
presented at the end of the term. The requirements for the study were deliberately loosely defined in order to invite
students to serve as co-designers of the project. Design decisions such as presentation formats, evaluation criteria,
instructor feedback and deadlines were determined in collaboration with the course instructor.
Participants were asked to provide feedback on their role as co-designers of the seminar project based on
specific aspects of instructional design:
 assignment due dates
 evaluation criteria
 evaluation method
Participants were also asked to comment on:
 the potential benefits of co-designing the course
 the potential weaknesses of co-designing the course
 their contribution to the design of the project requirements
 role as co-designer in any future courses
 the traditional role of the instructor as course designer
Each of the three surveys was administered after a project milestone had been completed, for example
students had collected their data and were ready to discuss presentation format options and evaluation criteria. A
sample of results from one of the surveys is found in
Appendix A. Consent to participant was provided by all seven students enrolled in the course but only five
students completed all three questionnaires. Individual responses were converted into aggregate data from all of the
participants. The research findings integrate the data gathered through the Likert–type questions and the open-ended
survey responses. The data directly related to the identification of strategies to support the learner’s role as codesigner are presented and discussed.
Results
The data (and resultant strategies are categorized using selected components of the Quality Assurance
Framework for Online Courses (Ining, Saj, & Hamilton, 2010) (show in Figure 1). The components were selected
due to their conceptual fit.
 Curriculum design
 Learning experience
 Instructional design
 Web design
 Teaching and facilitation
 Course presentation
Figure 1. Quality Assurance Framework
The first category that was selected is Learning experience which Chao describes as including factors such
as learner pre-requisite knowledge, learning styles and preferences, and the dynamics of the learning community
The second category is Instructional design which deals with the connection among learning outcomes, course
activities, teaching strategies, and the use of media and technology. The final category is Teaching and Facilitation
which is “the art of carrying out the curriculum and instructional design plan” …encompassing the instructor’s
knowledge and skill in guiding learning (Chao, p.35).
Table 2
Strategies for supporting the role of learner as co-designer
Recommended Strategy
Rationale
Learning experience
Conduct appropriate learner
characteristics assessment (prior
knowledge, learning styles, self-regulated
learning)
Learners vary according to preference for
structured versus unstructured learning
environment. Adjust degree of instructorlearner collaboration to appropriate level
Instructional design
Instructor should have a complete but
interim instructional design
Learner characteristics and need for initial
course structure necessitate the provision of a
complete course design to serve as a blueprint
which can be modified as needed
Instructor should decide, in advance,
which components of the instructional
design are most suitable for agile
development subject to change based on
learner input
Participants expressed preferences for codesigning specific parts of the course i.e.
evaluation method but not evaluation criteria;
project format but not due dates.
Teaching and Facilitation
Provide learners with provisional yet basic
structure at the course level (i.e. course
outline) and the assignment level
(learning objectives, weight, potential due
dates)
Participants expressed need for initial structure
that could be modified by the class as the course
progressed based on learners’ input and needs.
Provide learners with fundamentals of
instructional design and facilitate
discussions and decision-making sessions
about the course’s design
Participants expressed concern that they lacked
to knowledge to confidently make decisions
about the course’s design without the assistance
of the instructor i.e. evaluation criteria
Provide regular feedback on individual
learner’s contribution and progress in the
course.
While participants accepted the idea of selfdirected learning they also expressed a desire
for continuous feedback about their learning to
assure that they were making correct decisions.
Conclusion
Implications for local practice.
The purpose of this study was to apply selected processes identified in the AIDev Framework to the
development of a post-secondary course in computing science in order to:
1. Identify issues which impede the role of the learner as co-designer in the agile instructional development
process using one instantiation of the framework.
2. Provide prescriptive methods for involving the learner in the AIDev process.
Learners believe that they can and should contribute to the course design. However, they are selective about which
aspects of course they are “qualified” to contribute to. This qualification can be addressed using several strategies.
First, provide a complete course design to serve as a provisional blueprint that is considered dynamic and flexible.
This interim design enables learners to see the full architecture of the course –literally how all of the pieces fit
together and what the final products may look like. This prototype can be used to elicit feedback to adapt the design
to reflect the learners’ input. The provision of a prototype is a standard practice in agile software development.
Another strategy to address learners’ inexperience with instructional design is to teach the fundamentals of
instructional design and facilitate discussions and decision-making sessions about the course’s design throughout the
duration of the course. Finally, regular feedback on individual learner’s progress will address concerns about the
self-directed nature of acting as co-designer.
Implications for broader practice.
Institutions such as the University of British Columbia have partnered with the U.S.-based company
Coursera to provide high quality, non-credit courses free of charge to a global audience. The instructional design
team at UBC have expressed an interested in using agile methods to develop these Massive Online Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs). Efforts such as these and others may benefit from the use of some or all of the strategies
identified in this study to increase the role of the client in the design process. It is important to note that these
strategies were derived from data gathered from learners not instructors; as such they may not be as effective or
suitable in supporting the role of the instructor as co-designer. This presents an area where further research is
recommended.
Summary
A single case exploratory study was conducted as a continuation of a research agenda to validate the
recently created Agile Instructional Development (AIDev) Framework. The instantiation of a course that used
selected strategies from the framework provided an opportunity for what Yin describes as a revelatory case study in
which the researcher has an opportunity to observe and analyze a phenomenon previously inaccessible to inquiry
(Yin, 2003, p. 48). Themes that emerged from the survey data suggest that more structure in the form of a
provisional course design (i.e. blueprint) is needed up front in order to manage learner expectations and information
session(s) at the start of the course to “educate” learners on instructional design essentials would increase learners’
confidence in their ability to contribute as co-designers of the course. Limitations of the study include the lack of
triangulation from multiple data sources. This could have been addressed by including interviews, focus groups and
documenting each participant’s contribution to the design of the course such as evaluation criteria or recommended
seminar project format. A final limitation is that these strategies were derived from data gathered from learners not
instructors; as such they may not be as effective or suitable when the co-designer is an instructor working with an
instructional designer. Recommendations for future research include using a larger sample size of learners and
collecting data from more than one source. Similar methods could be applied using instructors as the sample to
identify which strategies would assist in their role as co-designer when using agile instructional development.
References
Bratt, S. (2011). A framework for agile instructional development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World
Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011, 1830-1839.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/38993
Douglas, I. (2006). Issues in software engineering of relevance to instructional design. TechTrends: Linking
Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50(5), 28-35. doi:10.1007/s11528-006-0035-z
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, , 43-53. Retrieved from
http://www.trainingsupersite.com/publications/archive/training/2000/004/004cv.htm
Ining, T., Saj, T. & Hamilton, D. (2013). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality
standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3).
Jabardeen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2009, 8(4)
Rawsthorne, P. (2005). Agile methods of software engineering should continue to have an influence over
instructional design methodologies. (Unpublished Cape Breton University & Memorial University of
Newfoundland, Retrieved from http://www.rawsthorne.org/bit/docs/RawsthorneAIDFinal.pdf
Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional
designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 38(1), pp. 31-44. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.macewan.ca/stable/30219925
Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory.
Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-23. Retrieved from
http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edpy597mappin/readings/m13_willis_2.htm
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Appendix A
Table 3
Agile Instructional Development Framework (Bratt, 2011)
Agile ID Principles
Instructional
Design Process
Components
Embrace change
to increase
pedagogical
utility
Iterate learning
designs
frequently
 Incorporate
rapid
prototyping
methodology
Design model
(approach)
Instructional
design team
member roles
Instructional
design
processes
Instructional
design tools
--
--
 Adapt to suit
evolving
requirements
 use electronic
storyboard
templates, not
authoring tools
 Use non-linear
ID model
 Conduct
research
concurrently
with
development
 Deliver learning
designs in days
not weeks
 Use templates,
learning objects,
Automated
instructional
design (AID)
technologies
Pedagogical
Excellence
Learner and
instructional designer
collaboration
Communication
Continuous
review
 Ensure instructional
designers have
formal training in
pedagogy
 Use of appropriate
instructional design
theory
 Let pedagogy not
technology lead the
solution
 Rotate instructional
designers through
same-customer
projects
 Rotate instructional
designers through
same-industry
projects
 Employ subject
matter experts with
instructional design
experience
 Have instructional
designers also serve
as developers
 Have instructional
designers oversee
designing completed
by subject matter
experts lacking
design experience
 Involve instructors
and learners in the
requirements
activities
--
--
 Place client on
design team
 Ensure client
representative is onsite full-time
--
--
 Use rapid
prototyping
methodologies with
new clients to
provide appearance
prototypes
 Test design with
potential learners
 Hold regular team
meetings to crossshare efficiencies
 Request
client/learner
feedback from
each iteration
 Conduct post
release review
 Let pedagogy not
technology lead the
solution
 Use instructional
design specialists
within a given media
to promote
technology
awareness
--
 Use groupware
authoring tools to
support concurrent
development
processes
--
Appendix B
Survey Question
Participant Response
With the potential for completely different
presentation methods, there's going to have
to be a fair amount of vagueness for the
criteria, or there's going to have to be
different ones for each, and it might be hard
to make it fair for all given presentation
styles.
I think with being able to decide the criteria
for evaluation for the seminar project has
cleared our own vision on what and where
the project will go. I think that this gives us
students a clear picture of what we need to
do.
I am not at all confident in deciding the
criteria used for evaluation of the project
because to me it makes no sense to decide
the criteria on which I will be evaluated on.
It'll probably be fine, but being given the
freedom to choose will mean we'll have to
take time choosing, and there's every
possibility that we might choose wrongly. It
also makes it harder to tell what's 'good
enough'.
The only problem I see with this is that some
people may have access to and knowledge of
much more creative ideas whereas others do
not.
A general consensus and the suggestions of
various ways of formatting the presentation
has given us different varieties of choices to
explore from.
I am confident about deciding the format for
my presentation because instead of limiting it
to a paper or an oral presentation of a paper,
I get to choose a medium or a hybrid of them
to best present my findings.
Please tell us how we might increase your confidence in co-designing any
aspect of this course
Just give me a half an idea what I'm supposed
to do, and I'll deal with it from there.
Please provide a proper outline. We need to
know when everything is due and how much
everything is worth in writing.
Make a final mark breakdown as to where the
majority of the mark lies, and make it
available on course outline for new students
A very small amount of structure to the
course/project outlines will probably make
things a little more clearer for the students
and give them more confidence to provide
with valuable feedback.
I felt that I did not contribute on the design of
the course in terms of material, and the kinds
of assignments given. My contributions lie
mainly in the design of the assignments and
projects and how they were completed.
I would say with the collective decisions of the
other class members we have restructured
the course outline that was given to us
before. I have given my input in the decisions
of how the class should be structured in terms
of class assignments, and their dates.
I was encouraged to participate and conduct
the seminar project at all times. Every student
in class was given the chance to form the
project in their own individual sense and use
their creativity on how they want to conduct
the interview, who the participants will be
and how will the project be presented. i think
i have been encouraged to bring out my own
thought process to the project and shape it
the way i want.
I was encouraged to participate and conduct
the seminar project at all times. Every student
in class was given the chance to form the
project in their own individual sense and use
their creativity on how they want to conduct
the interview, who the participants will be
and how will the project be presented. i think
i have been encouraged to bring out my own
thought process to the project and shape it
the way i want.
Well, we got to choose how we presented our
findings and the specific sense of what we
were supposed to look for, but we only had a
vague idea of what these findings were
supposed to be, so it was difficult to know
what counted as enough information, or was
even valid information.