Designerly Tools, Sketching, and Instructional Designers and the Guarantors of Design

Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

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.

Keywords

Instructional design Sketching Visualization Design representation Guarantor of design 

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Bias, R., & Mayhew, D. (2005). Cost-justifying usability: An update for the Internet Age (2nd ed.). New York: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML: A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botturi, L., & Stubbs, T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices. Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Damasio, A. (2005). Descarte’s error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Trade (Original work published 1938).Google Scholar
  12. Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  13. Easterby, R. S. (1970). The perception of symbols for machine displays. Ergonomics, 13(1), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, W. D. (1938). A source book of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (2007). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  17. Ertmer, P., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. (2014). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goldschmidt, B. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity, 4(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Greenspan, S., & Benderly, B. (1997). The growth of the mind and the endangered origins of intelligence. New York: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Klee, P., & Spiller, J. (1992). Paul Klee: The thinking eye. New York: Overlook Press.Google Scholar
  31. Laseau, P. (1986). Graphic problem solving for architects and designers (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  32. Merrill, D., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J., & The ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parrish, P., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2011). Learning experience as transaction: A framework for instructional design. Educational Technology, 51(2), 15–22.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models, volume III: Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. 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/
  42. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  49. 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/
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Verbeek, P. P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Verstijnen, I. M., van Leeuwen, C., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., & Hennessey, J. M. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, 19(4), 519–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, A. (2011). The elements of graphic design. New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations