Tinkering or Sketching: Apprentices’ Use of Tangibles and Drawings to Solve Design Problems

  • Patrick Jermann
  • Guillaume Zufferey
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5192)


The articulation of practice and theory is a central problematic in a dual apprenticeship system that combines working in a company and attending courses at school. Design problems are proposed by teachers as a way to address theoretical concepts in a practical context. The difficulties encountered by apprentices while creating paper based sketches motivated the development of a tabletop warehouse simulation providing apprentices with a Tangible User Interface in the form of a small-scale model. We compare drawings and tangible representational modalities with regards to three phases of design problem solving. Tinkering with tangibles is described as an easy way to engage into the problem. The physical properties of tangibles facilitate the extraction of features relevant for verification. The limited expressiveness of tangibles allows apprentices to focus on the search for a solution rather than on the representation of the problem space.


Tangible Computing Problem- and Project-based Learning Practice Fields Initial Vocational Training Field Studies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mühlemann, S., Wolter, S.C.: Bildungsqualität, demographischer Wandel, Struktur der Arbeitsmärkte und die Bereitschaft von Unternehmen, Lehrstellen anzubieten. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 54, 1 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Resnick, L.B.: The 1987 Presidential Address: Learning in School and out. Educational Researcher 16(9), 13–20+54 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P.: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18, 32–42 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins, A., Brown, J.S., Holum, A.: Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator 15(3), 6–11 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barab, S.A., Duffy, T.: From practice fields to communities of practice. In: Jonassen, D., Land, S.M. (eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments, pp. 25–56. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrington, J., Oliver, R.: An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development 48, 23–48 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development 48(4), 63–85 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fitzmaurice, G.: W.: Graspable User Interfaces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: CHI 1997: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 234–241. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Malley, C., Stanton-Fraser, D.: Literature review in learning with tangible technologies, Nesta FutureLab Series, report 12 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Price, S., Rogers, Y.: Let’s get physical: the learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Journal of Computers and Education 43, 137–151 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glasersfeld, E.: von: Abstraction, re-presentation and reflection. In: Steffe, L.P. (ed.) Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience, pp. 45–67. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall, P., Price, S., Yvonne Rogers, Y.: Conceptualising tangibles to support learning. In: Proceeding of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children, July 01-03, 2003, Preston, England (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uttal, D.H., Scudder, K.V., DeLoache, J.S.: Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 18, 37–54 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Design-Based Research Collective: Design based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher 32(1), 5–8 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, F., Hannafin, M.J.: Design based research and technology enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development 53(4), 523 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fiala, M.: ARTag, A Fiducial Marker System using Digital Techniques. In: IEEE Proc. CVPR. San Diego (June 2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chandrasekaran, B.: Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis. AI Magazine 11(4), 59–71 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buxton, B.: Sketching User Experiences. Getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fishkin, K.P.: A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(5), 347–358 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Jermann
    • 1
  • Guillaume Zufferey
    • 1
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 1
  1. 1.CRAFTEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations