Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interplay of computer and paper-based sketching in graphic design

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate student designers’ attitude and choices towards the use of computers and paper sketches when involved in a graphic design process. 65 computer graphic technology undergraduates participated in this research. A mixed method study with survey and in-depth interviews was applied to answer the research questions. This result shows that sketches and computers as design tools help students generate ideas in the early stage of design. Students’ preferences to use sketches or computers differ, since each tool has its own advantages and disadvantages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. S. (2001). Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

  • Adams, R. S. (2002). Understanding design iteration: Representations from an empirical study. Paper presented at the common ground, design research society international conference, London, UK.

  • Adams, R. S., & Atman, C. J. (1999). Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior. Paper presented at the frontiers in education conference 29th annual, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

  • Adams, R. S., & Atman, C. J. (2000). Characterizing engineering student design process: An illustration of iteration. Paper presented at the American society for engineering education annual conference, St. Louis, MO, United States.

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramanian, V., Turoff, M., & Ullman, D. (1998). A systematic approach to support the idea generation phase of the user interface design process. Paper presented at the system sciences, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii international conference, Kohala Coast, HI, USA.

  • Batra, D., & Davis, J. G. (1992). Conceptual data modeling in database design: Similarities and differences between expert and novice designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 37(1), 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilda, Z., & Demirkan, H. (2003). An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Design Studies, 24(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. S. (2007). The impact of working memory limitations on the design process during conceptualization. Design Studies, 28(4), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilda, Z., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (2006). To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question. Design Studies, 27(5), 587–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardella, M. E., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. S. (2006). Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers. Design Studies, 27(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condoor, S. S., Shankar, S. R., Brock, H. R., Burger, C. P., & Jansson, D. G. (1992). A cognitive framework for the design process. Design Theory and Methodology American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 42, 277–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and –redesign tasks: A study of naïve, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffold design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1995). Discovering design ability. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolis (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 105–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York: Elsevier Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricke, G. (1993). Empirical investigations of successful approaches when dealing with differently précised design problems. In International conference on engineering design ICED93, Heurista, Zürich.

  • Fricke, G. (1996). Successful individual approaches in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 8(3), 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 122–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günther, J., & Ehrlenspiel, K. (1999). Comparing designers from practice and designers with systematic design education. Design Studies, 20(5), 439–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hales, C. (1991). Analysis of the engineering design process in an industrial context. Eastleigh, UK: Grants Hill Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B. (2000). Accelerated thought: Electronic cognition. Digital image creation and analysis as a means to examine learning and cognition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

  • Jalil, M. A., & Noah, S. A. M. (2007). The difficulties of using design patterns among novices: An exploratory study. In ICCSA'07 Proceedings of the 2007 international conference computational science and its applications, IEEE, (pp. 97–103).

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokotovich, V., & Purcell, T. (2000). Mental synthesis and creativity in design: An experimental examination. Design Studies, 21(5), 437–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. London: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeCuyer, A. (1995). Design on the computer. Architectural Review, 197, 76–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, W. P., & Bonollo, E. (2002). An analysis of professional skills in design: Implication for education and research. Design Studies, 23(4), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipson, H., & Shpitalni, M. (2000). Conceptual design and analysis by sketching. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 14(5), 391–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, J. (2000). A proposal for alternative methods for teaching digital design. Automation in Construction, 9(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies, 27(5), 571–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models volume III: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moor, B. D., & Deek, F. P. (2006). On the design and development of a UML-based visual environment for novice programmers. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagai, Y., Taura, T., & Mukai, F. (2009). Concept blending and dissimilarity: Factors for creative concept generation process. Design Studies, 30(6), 648–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radcliffe, D., & Lee, T. Y. (1989). Design methods used by undergraduate engineering students. Design Studies, 10(4), 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelly & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Römer, A., Leinart, S., & Sachse, P. (2000). External support of problem analysis in design problem solving. Research in Engineering Design, 12(3), 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, P. (2005). Before and after the computer: The role of drawing in graphic design, visual: design: scholarship. Research Journal of the Australian Graphic Design Association, 1(2), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C., & Cassidy, T. (2007). Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools. Design Studies, 28(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designer’s cognitive actions. Design Studies, 19(4), 455–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomasson, B., Ratcliffe, M., & Thomas, L. (2006). Identifying novice difficulties in object oriented design. Paper presented at the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York, NY, USA.

  • Tseng, I., Moss, J., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (2008). The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design. Design Studies, 29(3), 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. G., Dietterich, T. G., & Stauffer, L. A. (1998). A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data. AI EDAM, 2(1), 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban-Lurain, M., Anderson, C. W., Parker, J., & Richmond, G. (2006). Fluency with information technology in teacher education: Moving from novice towards expertise. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.

  • Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Won, P. H. (2001). The comparison between visual thinking using computer and conventional media in the concept generation stages in design. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 319–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Education, Purdue University, GRIS 360E, 315 N. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2023, USA

    Rui Pan & Johannes Strobel

  2. Learning Design and Technology, Purdue University, BRNG Room 3168, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2023, USA

    Shih-Ping Kuo & Johannes Strobel

Authors
  1. Rui Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shih-Ping Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Strobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Strobel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, R., Kuo, SP. & Strobel, J. Interplay of computer and paper-based sketching in graphic design. Int J Technol Des Educ 23, 785–802 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9216-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9216-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation