Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sketching by design: teaching sketching to young learners

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

Abstract

Recent science educational reforms in the United States have prompted increased efforts to teach engineering design as an approach to improve STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) learning in K-12 classrooms. Teaching design in early grades is a new endeavor for teachers in the United States. Much can be learned from design teaching and research on K-12 design education outside of the US. The purpose of this study was to explore how students learn and use design sketching to support their learning of science and design practices. Researchers provided a treatment of design sketching instruction based on best practices of prior research finding (Hope in Des Technol Educ Int J 10: 43–53, 2005; Gustafson et al. J Technol Educ 19(1):19–34, 2007). A delayed treatment model was used to provide a two-group counterbalanced quasi-experimental design to compare an experimental group and comparison (delayed treatment) group results from (6) grade 3 classrooms. Researchers employed Hope’s Des Technol Educ Int J 10: 43–53, (2005) frame to organize sketching data for analysis. Findings from this study indicated that design instruction treatment did improve student’s design and communication practices, moving from using sketching as a container of ideas to the use of sketching as a form of design communication and to refine design ideas. Both the treatment and comparison groups improved sketching skills after treatment was provided to both groups. Sketching is a design practice that can also help student learn science concepts through the generation of mental models of conceptual understanding.

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, L., & Klasander, C. (2004). Understanding technological systems: Classroom implications for a systems approach. In Proceedings of the 3rd biennial international conference on technology education research, learning for innovation in technology education, December 2004 (Vol. 1, pp. 78–86). Gold Coast: Centre for Learning Research Griffith University.

  • Coley, F., Houseman, O., & Roy, R. (2007). An introduction to capturing and understanding the cognitive behavior of design engineers. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(4), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Corporation. (1994a). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curriculum Corporation. (1994b). Technology: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danos, X. (2014). Graphicacy and culture: Refocusing on visual learning. Leicestershire: Loughborough Design Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, J., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). Quality and characteristics of recent research in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education. (1992). Technology for ages 5 to 16 (1992): Proposals for the secretary of state for education and the secretary of state for wales. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger, G., & Houguet, B. (2009). Insights into the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges for implementing technology education: Case studies of Queensland teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and make during technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaitskell, D. (1958). Art; child artists; study and teaching (elementary). New York: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2004). (2004). Design problems are not of a kind: Differences in the effectiveness of visual stimuli in design problem solving. In J. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Knight (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 199–218). Sydney: Key Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, B., MacDonald, D., & Gentilini, S. (2007). Using talking and drawing to design: Elementary children collaborating with university industrial design students. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, G. (2000). Beyond their capability? Drawing, designing and the young child. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(2), 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, G. (2005). Types of drawings that young children produce in response to design tasks. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10(1), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, G. (2008). Thinking and learning through drawing. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Indiana Department of Education. (2015). State of Indiana education state report. Retrieved from http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/overview.aspx?type=corp&id=7865.

  • International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

  • Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and Ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., Harlow, A., & Cowie, B. (2004). New Zealand teachers’ experiences in implementing the technology curriculum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E., & Hartmann, D. P. (1978). The simultaneous-treatment design. Behavior Therapy, 9(5), 912–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Wicklein, R. C. (2009). Examination of engineering design curriculum content in secondary technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 46(1), 7–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. (1970). Analyzing children’s art, Palo Alto. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise (Vol. 31). Oxford: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education., 16(2), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenfeld, V. (1964). Creative and mental growth (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, D. (2007). Seeing mechanical: A case for advancing the role of sketching in the art of engineering. Mechanical engineering, 129(9), 35–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, J. (2000). Design: The creative soul of technology. In E. Martin (Ed.), Technology education for the 21st century: 49th Yearbook, council on technology teacher education (pp. 85–90). Peoria, Il: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, H. (2002). Technology education in Australia: Developing a new basic. The Technology Teacher, 62(3), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morford, L. L., & Warner, S. A. (2004). The status of design in technology teacher education in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 15(2), 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education (3rd ed.). Boulder, PA: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, D. (2003). Application sharing in K-12 education: Teaching and learning with Rube Goldberg. TechTrends, 47(5), 6–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (1998). The politics of research in technology education: A critical content and discourse analysis of the Journal of Technology Education, volumes 1–8. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C. (1983). On describing a student’s cognitive structure. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Ward, T., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effect of examples in a creative generation task. Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 837–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18, 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suwa, M., Tversky, B., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, A. T. (2001). Seeing into sketches: Regrouping parts encourages new interpretations. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Purcell (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design II, key centre of design computing and cognition (pp. 207–219). Sydney: University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2002). What do sketches say about thinking?. In AAAI spring symposium, sketch understanding workshop, Stanford University, AAAI technical report SS-02-08. 2002.

  • Tversky, B., Suwa. M., Agrawala, M., Heiser, J., Stolte, C., Hanrahan, P., et al. (2003). Sketches for design and design of sketches. In U. Lindemann (Ed.), Human behaviour in design (pp. 79–86). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., & Porter, S. (2002). Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies, 24, 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. G., Wood, S., & Craig, D. (1990). The importance of drawing in the mechanical design process. Computer and Graphics, 14(2), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering, 102(4), 513–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (1993). Technology education in Australia. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 3(3), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology. Journal of Technology Education., 11(2), 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuga, K. F. (1997). An analysis of technology education in the United States based upon an historical overview and review of contemporary curriculum research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by National Science Foundation Grant (DUE 0962840). Any opinions, and findings expressed in this material are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Leadership and Innovation, Purdue University, Young Hall, Room 342, 155 S. Grant Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2114, USA

    Todd R. Kelley & Euisuk Sung

Authors
  1. Todd R. Kelley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Euisuk Sung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Todd R. Kelley.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Design tasks: musical instrument

figure a

Appendix 2: Design tasks: simple machine

figure c

Appendix 3: Design tasks: bio-inspired flower

figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelley, T.R., Sung, E. Sketching by design: teaching sketching to young learners. Int J Technol Des Educ 27, 363–386 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation