Abstract
Sketching can be a means to visualize learning objects and experiences differently than is possible in text-based representations. In particular, the experiential qualities of designed experiences can be explored using sketching as a tool and may not be accessible to designers via other means. If designers are to assume appropriate responsibility for our designs, to be the guarantors of design, our toolkit must expand. Examples are given of the ways in which sketching, as a flexible skill, may be used to represent designs for learning, together with discussion of how instructional designers would need to be able to think about these sketches in order to use them as tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bergman, M., Lyytinen, K., & Mark, G. (2007). Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(11), 546–568.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Bias, R., & Mayhew, D. (2005). Cost-justifying usability: An update for the Internet Age (2nd ed.). New York: Morgan Kaufman.
Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2008). Artifacts as tools in the design process. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 685–690). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML: A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 265–293.
Botturi, L., & Stubbs, T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.
Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Damasio, A. (2005). Descarte’s error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Penguin.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Trade (Original work published 1938).
Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Easterby, R. S. (1970). The perception of symbols for machine displays. Ergonomics, 13(1), 149–158.
Ellis, W. D. (1938). A source book of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.
Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ertmer, P., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K–12 Teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 40–54.
Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.
Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.
Gibbons, A., Boling, E., & Smith, K. (2014). Design models. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M. J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goldschmidt, B. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity, 4(2), 123–143.
Gray, C. M., Stolterman, E., & Siegel, M. A. (2014). Reprioritizing the relationship between HCI research and practice: Bubble-Up and trickle-down effects. In DIS’14: Proceedings of the 2014 CHI Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 725–734). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598595.
Greenspan, S., & Benderly, B. (1997). The growth of the mind and the endangered origins of intelligence. New York: Perseus Books.
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
Harrison, S., Back, M., & Tatar, D. (2006). “It’s just a method!”: A pedagogical experiment in interdisciplinary design. In DIS’06: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 261–270). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142445.
Hokanson, B. (2008). The virtue of paper: Drawing as a means to innovation in instructional design. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices (pp. 75–89). Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Klee, P., & Spiller, J. (1992). Paul Klee: The thinking eye. New York: Overlook Press.
Laseau, P. (1986). Graphic problem solving for architects and designers (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Merrill, D., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J., & The ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.
Parrish, P. (2008). Plotting a learning experience. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices (pp. 91–111). Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.
Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7.
Parrish, P. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 261–270). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Parrish, P., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Learning experience as transaction: A framework for instructional design. Educational Technology, 51(2), 15–22.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models, volume III: Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.
Risdon, C. (2011). The anatomy of an experience map. Adaptive Path. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from http://www.adaptivepath.com/ideas/the-anatomy-of-an-experience-map/
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Learning in design. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 99–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.
Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65.
Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2008). Designerly tools. In Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008 (pp. 116:1–14). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/491/
Stubbs, T., & Gibbons, A. (2008). The pervasiveness of design drawing in ID. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.
Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.
Verstijnen, I. M., van Leeuwen, C., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., & Hennessey, J. M. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, 19(4), 519–546.
Vyas, D., & Nijholt, A. (2012). Artful surfaces: An ethnographic study exploring the use of space in design studios. Digital Creativity, 23(3–4), 176–195. doi:10.1080/14626268.2012.65852.
Waters, S. H., & Gibbons, A. S. (2004). Design languages, notation systems, and instructional technology: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 57–68.
White, A. (2011). The elements of graphic design. New York: Allworth Press.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Understanding and examining design activities with cultural historical activity theory. In A. Gibbons & B. Hokanson (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 89–106). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_6.
Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boling, E., Gray, C.M. (2015). Designerly Tools, Sketching, and Instructional Designers and the Guarantors of Design. In: Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., Tracey, M. (eds) The Design of Learning Experience. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16503-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16504-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)