sketching: friend or foe to the novice designer?

Sketching: Friend or Foe to the Novice Designer?

MALCOLM WELCH

Queen’s University, Faculty of Education, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6;E-mail: [email protected]

DAVID BARLEX

Nuffield Design and Technology, 28 Bedford Square, London, England, WC1B 3EG; E-mail: [email protected]

HEE SOOK LIM

Queen’s University, Faculty of Education, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6

ABSTRACT: Previous research by one of the authors showed that novice designers do notuse sketching as a way to generate, develop and communicate design proposals, but moveimmediately to three-dimensional modelling. Neither do they generate multiple solutions.

The follow-up study described here addressed the questions: Does teaching two-dimen-sional modelling enable Grade 7 pupils to better express their ideas and organize theirthoughts? What role does discussion play in pupils’ attempts to generate a design proposal?Does the use of contextualising items make a difference to pupils’ success with designing?

Eight Grade 7 pupils were drawn from each of two classes. One class had receivedinstruction in sketching; the other served as a control group. Each group of eight pupilswas divided into single-sex dyads. The eight dyads were videotaped while producing a solutionto a common design brief. Analysis of the data has provided insights into the effects ofinstruction on the proposals produced by pupils. Additionally, their ability to generate, developand communicate design ideas is enhanced by both the dynamic relationship between pupils’talk and 3D modelling and the way the task is contextualised.

Keywords: designing, modelling, protocol analysis, sketching

INTRODUCTION

Watching young children at play with pencils, crayons, paint, paper andbrushes soon makes evident the enjoyment they derive from producing awide range of images describing both their inner world and the materialenvironment that surrounds them. Once they enter formal schooling pro-ducing images on paper is an integral part of many curriculum areas. Forexample, children paint and draw in art lessons, draw maps and diagramsin geography lessons, draw graphs in mathematics lessons and draw labeleddiagrams in science. In design and technology lessons pupils are requiredto draw for a variety of purposes, including generating, developing andcommunicating their design ideas (Barlex 1995; Welch 1998). In early yearsdrawings are likely to be limited to freehand sketches. As pupils get oldermore formal drawing methods are taught including the use of instrumentsand CAD (QCA 1999; MET 1998).

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 10, 125–148, 2000. 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

However, previous research (Welch 1996, 1998) showed that novicedesigners do not use sketching as a way to generate, develop and com-municate design proposals, but move immediately to three-dimensionalmodelling. Neither do they, as advocated in most textbook and curriculum-based design process models (Garratt 1991; MET 1995) generate multiplesolutions in order to choose and further develop the one with the mostpromise. Furthermore, novice designers lack the requisite modelling skillsto generate, develop and communicate their ideas. These results raiseimportant questions about the teaching and learning of two-dimensionalmodelling, which in most design and technology curricula is seen as centralto developing capability in design and technology (QCA 1999; MET 1998).For what purposes will pupils need to sketch? What sketching techniquesare appropriate for these purposes? What is the best way to teach thesetechniques? What do pupils need to learn in order to select the most appro-priate technique for a particular purpose?

This paper reports the results of an intervention study designed toinvestigate the effect of instruction in sketching (two-dimensional model-ling) on the ability of Grade 7 (equivalent to Year 7 in the UK) novicedesigners to produce a solution to a design-and-make task. Two-dimensionalmodelling involves making representations of design ideas on paper.Techniques include rough sketches as the designer explores ideas, annotateddiagrams, exploded diagrams, renderings to show finished form, and engi-neering drawings which permit making by someone else (Barlex 1994;Johnsey 1995). For a pupil designer two-dimensional modelling may servea wide variety of purposes, including recording what exists, framing ideas,visualizing the whole or component parts of the product and its finishedappearance, identifying possible faults in a design, testing ergonomics,examining the relationship between components, improving the form ofthe product, communicating ideas and information to others, and evalu-ating ideas (Davies 1996; Evans and Wormald 1993; Liddament 1993;Sparkes 1993).

The study described here addressed three questions: Does teaching two-dimensional modelling enable Grade 7 pupils to better express their ideasand organize their thoughts? What role does discussion play in pupils’attempts to generate a design proposal? Does the use of contextualisingitems make a difference to pupils’ success with designing?

This paper begins with a review of the literature describing the role ofsketching for design professionals. Next, the method used to teach sketchingto Grade 7 pupils and to collect and analyze data is outlined. This is followedby discussion of the impact of this instruction on the pupils’ design pro-posals. The implications of these findings for teaching pupils how to expresstheir ideas on paper completes the discussion.

126 MALCOLM WELCH ET AL.

DESIGN PROFESSIONALS USE OF SKETCHING

Sketching is a complex task (Schenk 1997) that, for the design professional,permeates their work from start to finish and is used for a variety ofpurposes. Schenk has identified 25 different types of drawing (includingdoodle, sketch, projection, schematics and rendered) and 23 drawingabilities (including precision, speed, and flair).

For professional designers sketching plays an essential role in generating,developing and communicating ideas. Sketching is both a form of thinkingand the fundamental language of design. Tipping (1983) has suggestedthat fluent sketching ability may be ‘the single most important factor indeveloping any general design ability’ (p. 45). Archer (1979) refers todrawing ‘as a fundamental component of the wider language of model-ling, which in turn is the essential language of design’ (p. 133). Sketchingis essential for communicating ideas, both with ‘self’ and others (Lowe1993; Robbins 1997; Temple 1994). Robbins (1997) points out thatsketching has both a monologic and dialogic function: ‘Earliest sketches,with their fits and starts, the changes they confront and record, and thequestions they raise represent both an interior dialogue that has taken placewithin the designer and, often, an exterior dialogue with others concernedwith the drawings’ (p. 35).

For the design professional sketching is a particularly powerful formof thinking. According to Olszweski (1981) this idea has its origins in theOld Italian name pensieri, meaning ‘thoughts’, used in the art and designworld of the Renaissance to describe sketches. Brett (1986) views sketchingas ‘an activity fundamental to human action. . . . Along with counting andspeaking [it is] a primary form of cognition’ (p. 59). Temple (1994) hasdescribed sketches as ‘thoughts in action’ (p. 323) and Kafai (1995)describes sketches as ‘objects-to-think-with’ (p. 10). Purcell (1998) talksof ‘thinking through the end of a pencil’ (p. 385). Herbert (1993) viewssketches not as a medium for recording already conceived mental imagesbut as active participants in a designer’s thinking. In a similar fashionGoldschmidt (1991) claims that ‘sketching is not merely an act of repre-sentation of a preformulated image . . . it is, more often than not, a searchfor such an image’ (p. 131).

As a form of thinking sketching serves the designer in three ways. First,in the early stages of designing, sketching may help to explicate needs,define and clarify the task. Sketching is a crucial part of the process ofunderstanding and gaining insight into a design problem. Robbins (1997)argues that ‘until you delineate [a] design conception in a drawing you reallycannot claim to understand it’ (p. 32). Piano claims that ‘it is a mistaketo believe that now I understand the problem and now I draw it. Rather,right at the time you draw you realize what the problem is’ (quoted inRobbins 1997, p. 127).

Second, sketching as a form of thinking allows and encourages thedesigner to ‘play’ with ideas, an essential stage to creative idea develop-

SKETCHING 127

ment (Garner 1994). Sketching is a powerful tool for formalizing, exploringand testing these playful musings, to explore and manipulate the unknown.Unlike the time-consuming and more costly experimenting with three-dimensional materials and models, designing with pencil and paper providesgreater room for experimentation. The designer can work through a wholerange of ideas and possibilities without incurring high costs or consumingvaluable resources.

Third, sketching facilitates the evaluation of a design proposal and theidentification and restating of problems. Sketching provides a means oftesting concepts (Temple 1994), which in turn will encourage the furthergeneration of ideas (Garner 1994). Evaluation permits progress ‘from aninnovative mental image to a vehicle for analysis and criticism’ (Temple1994, p. 24).

As interior dialogue the language of sketching helps the designer to thinkabout generating and developing design ideas. As exterior dialogue thelanguage of sketching can be used to show others what the designer isthinking. Sketching also enables those others to reply rapidly and fluentlyso that they can contribute to that thinking. It is clear that the designprofessional makes significant use of sketching as a tool for generating,developing and communicating design ideas. This begs the question as towhether sketching should occupy such a prestigious place in the way pupilsoperate. The programmes of study for Design and Technology in the cur-ricula for both England and Ontario require pupils to be taught a range ofboth two-dimensional and three-dimensional techniques for generating,developing and communicating design ideas (QCA 1999; MET 1998).However OfStEd inspection findings indicate that teachers place an overreliance on sketching for these purposes: ‘[teachers] rely . . . on designingonly with paper and pencil, sometimes retrospectively, so that design-sheetsbecome an end in themselves rather than a means to an end’ (OfStEd1998, p. 1).

Earlier research (Welch 1996, 1998) has shown that novice designers,i.e., pupils with little if any design and technology education, do not usethe language of sketching to generate, develop and communicate designideas. The next section of this paper describes an intervention study in whichthe effects of teaching sketching on the strategies used and the designproposals produced by novice designers was investigated.

METHOD

The study was carried out in two phases: (a) a preparatory phase involvedthe development of a unit of work on structures, an in-service workshopand teaching the unit; and (b) a research phase in which selected pupilscompleted a designing and making task.

The unit on structures was developed for the following reasons:1. As a vehicle for introducing pupils to the language of sketching.


2. To provide a task (embedded in the unit) that allows experience ofdesigning and making, yet is significantly different from the researchtask.

3. To provide an in-service experience for two Grade 7 teachers to givethem skills, knowledge and understanding in the areas of structuresand sketching.

4. To develop a unit of work relevant to the new Ontario Science andTechnology curriculum for Grades 1–8.

The structures unit

The structures unit was centered around a design and make task whichread as follows:

The Context: My Favourite Music and VideosMost people own a collection of audiotapes, videotapes or compact discs. Often thiscollection becomes very large. However, most people have a smaller number of favouritesthat they play frequently. Keeping this separate from the main collection, stored so theyare tidy and protected, is therefore useful.

The Design BriefDesign and make a container to hold a small collection of your favourite audiotapes,videotapes or compact discs.

This design brief meets the requirements of the structures and mecha-nisms strand at the Grade 7 level of a new curriculum from the OntarioMinistry of Education and Training The Ontario Curriculum grades 1–8:science and technology (MET 1998). Designing and making a simple storagedevice provides a challenging but not daunting task. There is sufficient scopefor able pupils to demonstrate flair whilst less able pupils can also achievesuccess. Importantly, the unit provides opportunities for pupils to use thelanguage of sketching as they generate, develop and communicate theirdesign ideas. The contents of the unit are shown in Appendix 1.

The in-service workshop

Two teachers from a rural elementary school participated in an in-serviceworkshop. One teacher taught a Grade 7 class, while the other taught asplit Grade 7/8 class. Neither teacher had prior education in or experienceteaching design and technology. The first hour of the workshop was devotedto a review of the structures unit, discussion focusing on largely prag-matic issues: obtaining the tools and materials, storage and presentationof the pupils’ work, and time lines.

The remaining three hours of the workshop were devoted to providingthe two teachers with basic skills of generating, developing and commu-nicating ideas using isometric sketching. This portion of the workshop beganwith three short activities to illustrate: (a) the limitations of verbal com-munication when attempting to communicate to others a mental image;(b) how ideas may be communicated effectively without the use of written

SKETCHING 129

or spoken language; and (c) the importance of holding a pencil correctly,how hand-eye coordination can be improved and the effect of differingline weight.

This introductory set of activities was followed by instruction in isometricsketching techniques. First the author demonstrated, using an isometricgrid on the overhead projector, how ideas can be quickly and effectivelycommunicated using a freehand isometric sketch. The ‘crating’ methodfor sketching square and rectangular objects was demonstrated, followed bya period of guided practice. Sketching isometric circles on gridded paperfollowed. The techniques required to move from sketching on gridded paperto sketching on plain paper completed the workshop (for a more detailedexplanation of the materials and techniques see Gradwell et al. 1996a,1996b, 1996c).

The research task

Two Grade 7 classes participated in the study. All pupils in Class A weregiven instruction in isometric sketching. This instruction, given by theregular classroom teacher after in-service training, was part of a 25-hourunit of work focusing on structures. Pupils in Class B did not completethe unit, received no instruction in sketching, and hence served as a controlgroup. Following completion of the structures unit eight pupils from eachclass were selected and divided into single-sex dyads. Dyads 2, 3, 6 and8 were drawn from the taught class. Dyads 1, 4, 5 and 7 were drawn fromthe control group.

The eight dyads were each given the context and design brief shownin Figure 1. They were instructed to read this through, and invited to askquestions.

After reading the context and brief pupils were instructed to completea worksheet (Figure 2) containing a set of contextualising items beforestarting to design and make. Pupils were encouraged to discuss with eachother their responses to the items.

Pupils were given two hours in which to complete the task. Theirdesigning and making was video and audiotaped. The natural talk betweenthe pupils was transcribed verbatim and the transcripts were segmented intospeech bursts. A description of the pupils’ actions was added to the rightof each segment. The time at which a change in the pupils’ actions occurredwas added to the left of each segment, thus allowing calculation of theduration of each period of action.

A coding scheme (Welch 1998) was used to code actions of the pupils.The natural talk while designing and making informed the coding. Thoseactions coded as designing were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Thisanalysis provided data for ‘mapping’, using an XY scattergraph, the designstrategy of each dyad. These maps provided a visual representation of thedesign process used by each dyad, which in turn permitted a comparisonboth between dyads and between the two groups of dyads. (For a more


SKETCHING 131

Figure 1. The context and design brief for the research task.

The Context: Your best friend has had an accident. While not seriously hurt he/sheis confined to bed in the hospital for two weeks. Not able to move very much, andable to use only a bed tray as a play surface, your friend has told you they are becomingbored and wish they had a new toy or game to play with. You have decided thatwhen you visit next time you will take a toy or game you have designed and made.You now have to make some decisions.

The Design brief: Design and make a toy or game that will amuse and intrigue abed-ridden hospital patient aged approximately 12 years and that can be played withon a bed tray.

Designing a toy or game for a friend in hospital

The nine items below will help you begin thinking about designing a toy or gamefor a bedridden friend. Try to answer them all before you begin developing a solution.

1. What type of toys do you and your friends play with?2. What type of games do you and your friends play?3. List some toys or games that require hand and eye coordination.4. List some toys and games that require a lot of thinking.5. List some toys and games that can be played alone.6. List some toys and games that you play with one or more friends.7. List some educational toys and games.8. What safety issues are important?9. How often will the toy or game be used? For how long?

Figure 2. The contextualising items.

complete description of this method see Welch 1996, 1998.) Analysisprovided insights into the effects of instruction on the proposals producedby pupils, and raised significant questions about the role of sketching inthe work of novice designers.

RESULTS

Teaching the structures unit

The unit was taught to 25 pupils in the Fall term. Teaching the unit required25 lessons, each of 60 minutes duration. Each pupil practiced isometricsketching to the extent of producing a minimum of 10 complete sketches.The teacher commented that through this experience most pupils becameadept at isometric sketching a range of simple geometric forms composedof both straight and curved lines.

In response to the storage design brief the range of designs producedby the pupils was limited: 24 of the 25 pupils produced rectilinear storageunits, possibly because the taught sketching technique used crating andthe examples used in the teaching were largely rectilinear.

Responses to the research task

The research task was administered in the Winter term. Figure 3 shows asample of the toys and games made by the pupils who tackled the researchtask. Note the mix of two-dimensional and three-dimensional outcomes.

Figure 4 shows the strategy used by Dyad 8 when codes are mapped, andis representative of the four dyads who received instruction in sketching.Appendix 2 provides the codes in full and their definitions. Figure 5 showsthe steps map for Dyad 8. Figure 6 shows the strategy used by Dyad 1 whencodes are mapped and is representative of the four dyads from the controlgroup. Figure 7 shows the steps map for Dyad 1.

All four maps show clearly the small amount of time devoted by pupilsto sketching (DRAW in the codes map). However, analysis of the data showsthat six of the 8 dyads spent a small amount of time sketching beforeworking with three-dimensional materials. Of these, three were in the controlgroup. Of the four dyads (1 in the taught group and 3 in the control group)who made a board game two (both in the control group) sketched verydetailed plan views. However, these were not drawn prior to making thegame, but rather were developed as making was in progress, providing awritten record of making as it occurred rather than a plan for future action.The other two dyads that made a board game made no attempt at sketching,although Dyad 6 (in the taught group) did write a very detailed list ofrules for the game. One pupil in Dyad 3 (taught group), who made a toythat involved dropping a marble down a columnar maze, carefully divideda sheet of paper into four equal parts. In the upper left section the pupilsketched a side view of the maze. In the upper right section he sketcheda top view and in the lower left section a ‘bottom’ view. Pupils inDyad 2 (taught group) and Dyad 4 (control group) sketched a side viewof a marble maze, but once completed (in just a few seconds) never againreferred to the sketch. A pupil in Dyad 8 (taught group) made the mostaccurate sketch of what they proposed, but even so spent very little timeon this (Figure 8).


SKETCHING 133

Figures 4–7 also show the dominance of three-dimensional modelling,a result consistent with that from two previous studies by one of the authors(Welch 1996, 1998). The maps show how, once the pupils had completedthe contextualising items, they moved quickly to modelling using three-dimensional materials. The pupils were almost constantly manipulatingmaterials as they explored elements of a proposal. They did not, on anyoccasion, return to drawing as a way to explore modifications to theiroriginal solution. They generated new ideas by manipulating three-dimen-sional materials, not by sketching.

The effect of using contextualising items

While responding to the contextualising items the pupils interspersed theirconversation with discussion of the performance criteria contained in thecontext: the person is confined to hospital, cannot get out of bed and theonly flat surface available is a bed tray. For example, when S15 and S16are responding to the item ‘List some toys or games that require hand andeye coordination’ the following conversation occurs:

S16: Like hockey 179S15: You can’t play that in bed 180

Then later, when they are answering the question ‘How often will the toyor game be used?’

S16: I don’t know. 338S15: It will be used often ‘cause he’s in bed. 339

He has nothing else to do. 340

When S1 and S2 are reviewing their answers to the items S1 notes thatS2 has written the word ‘never’ on the answer sheet. This prompts thefollowing exchange:

S1: Never. What’s that? 435S2: Never ending games. 437S1: Never ending games? Why would you 450

have never ending games? 451S2: Because you don’t know how long he’s 453

going to be in there, and you don’t want 454him to run out of ideas. 455

The contextualising items also stimulated discussion of solutions andappeared to provide a supportive way for pupils to develop their ideas.Simultaneously discussing a proposal and manipulating materials was alsoa preferred strategy of pupils. The data suggests that this is an importantstrategy for pupils as they attempt to generate, develop and communicatetheir ideas. In other words, it appears that it is not appropriate to requirepupils to only think about or sketch solutions.

A review of pupils’ responses to the contextualising items also shows


3b. A self-assembly marble maze.

Figure 3. A sample of toys and games made during the research task.

3a. A board game that folds away for ease of storage.

SKETCHING 135

3d. A variation on the traditional ball and cup game.

Figure 3. (Continued).

3c. A tower marble maze, intriguing but unstable.

136M

AL

CO

LM

WE

LC

H E

T A

L.

Figure 4. Strategy used by Dyad 8 (codes map).

SK

ET

CH

ING

137Figure 5. Strategy used by Dyad 8 (steps map).

138M

AL

CO

LM

WE

LC

H E

T A

L.

Figure 6. Strategy used by Dyad 1 (codes map).

SK

ET

CH

ING

139Figure 7. Strategy used by Dyad 1 (steps map).

that they draw on their existing knowledge. For example, while respondingto the contextualising item ‘List some toys and games that require handand eye coordination’ the pupils in Dyad 8 had discussed a ‘ball and cup’toy. The conversation went as follows:

S16: There’s this game 195where you hit it off the thing and 196you try to get it into a cup. Its like, 197I forget the name of it, but its like 198you have this thing its like a handle 199and there’s a ball . . . 200yeah you try to get it in . . . 201

S15: Don’t know what it’s called 202 S16: Just put ball and cup 203

DISCUSSION

As Cross (1994) has stated ‘the generation of solutions is . . . the essen-tial, central aspect of designing . . . the whole purpose of design is tomake a proposal for something new – something which does not yet exist’(p. 105). The National Curriculum for England and Wales emphasizes that‘children should be taught to “generate ideas” and this is surely at theheart of design’ (Department for Education 1995, p. 2). Cross (1994) alsonotes that ‘the focus of all design activity is a final description of [a]proposed artifact. The most essential activity, therefore, is the productionof a . . . description of the artifact’ (p. 2).

Analysis of the way in which pupils in this study generated, developedand communicated a proposal has made evident three important issuesrelated to enabling pupils’ success with designing and making: (a) sketchingis not a method by which pupils explore solutions; (b) discussion betweenpupils plays a major role in the clarification of ideas; and (c) setting acontext for designing and making appears critical to pupils’ success.

Sketching a Proposal

Figures 4–7 illustrate how little time the pupils in this study devoted togenerating, developing and communicating a proposal by sketching prior


Figure 8. A pupil’s sketch of the ball and cup game.

to three dimensional modelling. One class of pupils had been taught somesketching techniques, and one class acted as a control group. Yet none ofthe pupils selected as research subjects made use of sketching as a wayof generating, developing and communicating ideas. Why were pupilsreluctant to explore ideas in sketch form? Several explanations arepossible.

Although sketching has the potential for use in this way it requiresconsiderable skill to use it fluently. As Anning (1993) has noted ‘the abilityto visualize objects in diagrammatic form and translate these images intoline drawings . . . is a . . . sophisticated, taught convention’ (p. 178).Those pupils who had been taught isometric sketching techniques were ableto use this for formal exercises during the structures unit but were eitherunable or unwilling to use this skill for designing. It may be that the pupilssaw sketching as an irrelevance because, as Constable (1994) suggests,pupils are prone to the ‘pretty picture syndrome’ (p. 9) in which they areused to producing sketches as a final outcome and consider it futile to sketchan object before making it.

We propose that pupils, acting as novice designers, will use availablematerials with methods they see as immediately relevant for the task in hand.Dyads 2, 3, 4 and 8 chose to produce marble mazes. These are 3D arti-facts and modelling in 3D with easy to work materials is an immediatelycompelling means of developing a solution both in initial concept and indetail. Interestingly Dyads 1, 5, 6, and 7 chose to produce board gameswhich one might suppose lend themselves to two-dimensional modellingas a means of developing the design. However the only use of sketchingmade here was to record the making process.

From a small-scale study such as described here it is not clear whetherthis immediate move to 3D modelling, even by those pupils who had beentaught sketching skills, is a result of previous educational experiences, ofthe type and contexts of tasks undertaken, or the stage of development ofpupils’ manipulative skills. These issues provide useful avenues for futureresearch. For example, it would be useful to replicate the study using a broadrange of design tasks, including those that were a priori more oriented to2D design activities, thus enabling a consideration of task bias.

The novice designers in this study proposed and developed one solutiononly. This is consistent with the findings of other authors (Jeffery 1991;Kimbell 1997) who refute the ‘three-ideas paradigm’ (Kimbell 1997, p. 21).A small number of empirical studies have provided evidence that thisstrategy is also true for some expert designers (Darke 1979; Eastman 1970).Darke (1979) proposed, based on a study of six professional architects, agenerator-conjecture-analysis model. Early in the process of designing asimple idea, or primary generator, is used to produce a narrow range ofpossible solutions. This primary generator is subsequently used as a basisfor further exploration of the problem. Darke goes on to speculate thatonce an initial concept has been generated it is tested against variousconstraints and requirements and modified as necessary, which in turn leads

SKETCHING 141

to further ideas. However this is a very sophisticated process, dependentupon expert knowledge and fluency in sketching.

If our aim is to help pupils develop a range of design ideas rather thana single idea then we need to teach strategies that encourage this. Forexample attribute analysis (Barlex 1995, p. 43) can be used to take a singleproduct as a starting point and generate dozens of alternative designs. Thisis a technique which requires very little if any sketching in its early stages.However, several of the many ideas produced may then be sketched toexplore their potential further.

We believe it is important to teach pupils to choose methods of model-ling that are appropriate to the task at hand. Sometime the appropriatemethod will involve sketching; at other times it will not. Modelling simpleshapes is easily and most efficiently explored through sketching. Designingsimple three-dimensional forms may be started using sketching but is oftendeveloped further through block models. Developing ideas for a complexthree-dimensional form such as a mask is more easily modeled using plas-ticine or clay. If pupils are to choose sketching when it is appropriate theywill need to have sketching in their repertoire of skills and hence willneed to be taught relevant forms of sketching. Our view is that perhapsthe approach adopted in art and design – enabling children to draw whatthey see, as they see it (QCA 1999) – may be more appropriate than thetraditional technical drafting approach (French et al. 1977) to two-dimensional modelling in which pupils are taught formal methods ofdrawing. Note it will be necessary to ensure that pupils understand thepurpose of this sketching in the context of design and technology as opposedto art and design i.e., to give substance to the as yet undeveloped ideaswithin their minds eye. In art and design the sketch is often an appro-priate end product, whereas in design and technology the sketch is usuallythe first step on the start of the design journey.

Discussing ideas

Discussion played a very significant role in pupils’ attempts to generate asolution and appeared to provide an informal and supportive way forsubjects to develop their ideas. The data shows that pupils need little encour-agement to talk about their ideas. It is important to permit this, for as theDepartment for Education in England suggests ‘by talking about the qualityof their own work and the work of others children learn to evaluate’(Department for Education, n.d., no page). This approach is supported bySchön (1987) who wrote ‘drawing and talking are parallel ways of designingand together make up . . . the language of designing’ (p. 45). The StatutoryOrder for design and technology in England and Wales (Department forEducation, 1995) requires that teachers develop their pupils’ use oflanguage: ‘pupils should be taught to express themselves clearly in bothspeech and writing’ (p. 3). Lyle (1996) has reported that learning withinthe ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky 1986, p. 33) can also occurthrough interaction between participants of similar ability.


We observed a dynamic relationship between pupils’ talk and three-dimensional modelling. Sometimes changing the model stimulateddiscussion and helped the pupils develop new ideas or solve problems. Atother times the reverse was true and a discussion point led to the 3D modelbeing further developed. This supports the claim of Hennessey and Murphy(1999) that ‘productive thinking in the context of physical activity is bothreflected in and stimulated by discourse between collaborators as they shareand assess ideas’ (p. 3). How can teachers encourage pupils to workcollaboratively in this way?

Teachers can encourage pupils to use appropriate language and toarticulate ideas effectively. Parker (1998) suggests a number of ways inwhich this might be achieved; (a) use whole class questioning at the begin-ning of a lesson to discuss objectives and at the end of a lesson to checkon progress; (b) build into the teaching sequence opportunities for pupilpresentations; and (c) encourage pupils to use a dictionary of technical termsto provide appropriate technological vocabulary. We would add thatrequiring pupils to work in pairs or small groups when developing designsolutions provides an additional and much needed dimension to theseteacher-directed strategies. We note here that enabling pupils to discussappropriate sketches will also be a powerful means for them to generate,develop and communicate ideas.

The significance of the context

Putting the task in to context by identifying the client (a sick person confinedto a hospital bed, with only a bed tray as a play surface) and requiringthe pupils to consider the nature of the product by responding to a set ofcontextualising items was an additional element to previous research (Welch1996, 1998). The situation of the client was communicated to the pupilsby means of text and illustration, as shown in Figure 1.

The contextualising items encouraged pupils to think about the followingfeatures of toys and games: • Their own personal preferences • Types of toys and games • Knowledge and skill requirements for playing/using • Social aspects • Educative value• Safety issues

A key question is ‘What difference did this make to pupils’ successwith designing?’ In a previous study (Welch 1998), in which only theclient was specified but no contextualising items were provided, the rangeof solutions was limited to a single product type – model cars. In the studyreported here three different product types were produced – a variety ofboard games, marble mazes and a ball-and-cup game. It appears thatcontextualising enables pupils to respond in more diverse ways. Importantly,all pupils involved in the study were able to talk about and identify withthe situation of the client and this enabled them to engage with the design

SKETCHING 143

issues that needed to be resolved in developing a solution. The overall designdecision made – the type of toy or game and the detail of the design –why play, how to play, how long to play for, convenience and safety wereall items of discussion. This evidence leads us to conclude that contextu-alising the task is essential if pupils are to be actively engaged in makingdesign decisions. In their evaluation of the Nuffield Design and Technologyin the Primary Curriculum Project materials Murphy and Davidson (1998)state ‘the evidence from the evaluation makes it very clear how importantit is for teachers to understand the relationship between the context forthe task and the design decisions that follow’ (p. 9).

CONCLUSION

The study reported here has shown how, when given a design and maketask, Grade 7 novice designers, whether taught sketching skills or not, donot use them as a way to develop a proposal. Rather, pupils explore theirmental images using three-dimensional materials.

Pupils in this and earlier studies did not view sketching as a mediatinginstrument between mind and hand, between thinking and doing. This isperhaps not surprising because although design professionals use sketchingas a means of thinking they are already highly skilled and fluent in itsuse. Pupils, on the other hand, are of necessity likely to have limited skillsand insufficient experience of sketching to be fluent. It is important that thislack of skill is not permitted to inhibit pupils’ ability to generate, developand communicate design ideas. The data has shown that pupils take actionthemselves to resolve this dilemma by moving straight to three-dimensionalmodelling when this is possible. In addition to the type of modelling tech-niques used by the pupils this study suggests their ability to generate,develop and communicate design ideas is enhanced by both the dynamicrelationship between pupils’ talk and three-dimensional modelling and theway the task is contextualised.

This study has identified the following important issues that remain tobe resolved given the centrality of modelling to the designer-maker capa-bility required by current design and technology curricula:• Is the modelling strategy used by pupils a function of the task? • Would design and make tasks oriented toward 2D activities invoke

different modelling strategies from pupils? • Which modelling strategies should be taught? • What is the most appropriate sequence in which to teach modelling

strategies? How does this sequence map onto the age and ability of thepupil?

• What is the most effective way to enable pupils to choose and usemodelling strategies appropriately?

• What contribution does learning to model ideas make to the overallcognitive development of the pupil?


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would welcome suggestions and comments based on this paper.Please send comments to M. Welch at: Queen’s University, Faculty ofEducation, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6. Tel: Int 613-533-6000;Ext. 77867. E-mail: [email protected]

APPENDIX 1. CONTENTS OF THE STRUCTURES UNIT

Lesson (1 hour) Topic

01. Introduction to • An introduction to structuresstructures • Activity: thinking about different types of structures

• Activities to introduce definitions, meanings and applications

02. Introduction to the • Introduction to the Design and Make activitydesign and make task • Assessment rubric

• Thinking about the task and generating ideas• Available materials • Homework

03. Two-dimensional • Debrief homeworkmodelling: Sketching • Uses of 2D modelling

• Sketching techniques • Homework

04. Sketching a design • Debrief homeworkproposal • Sketch your design proposal

– Evaluating your sketches – Refining your design proposal

05. Three-dimensional • Group sharingmodelling • Exploring ideas in 3D

• 3D modelling techniques • Evaluating and refining

06. Planning the making • Planning the making • Daily log

07. Making • Tool skills

8–11. Making the product • Construction of the product • On-going daily logs

12. Assessment • Evaluating the product: from the design specifications• Evaluating the product: from a marketing point of view• Evaluating the product: using the assessment rubric

13. Product exhibition • Exhibition of work

SKETCHING 145

APPENDIX 2. CODES TO DESCRIBE DESIGNING AND MAKING

Step Code Definition

Understanding the RBRF Reading design brief as given to subjects by researcher problem DPERF Discussing/referring to performance criteria

DCONS Discussing/referring to constraints

Generating possible GEN Discussing possible solutionssolutions DRAW Sketching/drawing possible solutions

Modelling a possible PMU Planning the making of a mock-upsolution MANIP Manipulating materials to explore one element of a

possible solutionMMU Making a mock-upRMU Refining a mock-up; making modifications to current

solutionCMMU Making a copy of a previous mock-upARM Checking available resources and materialsABAN Abandon current solution; begin new solution

Building a solution PPR Planning the production of a prototype MPR Making a prototypeIPPR Identifying a problem with a prototypeMODPR Modifying and improving the prototype in terms of the

original need, i.e., making a design change

Evaluation EGEN Evaluating as subjects talk about a possible solutionEDRAW Evaluating as subjects talk about a sketch or drawing TMU Testing one element of a mock-up as designing continuesEMU Evaluating mock-up in terms of design briefTPR Testing one element of the prototype as making continuesEPR Evaluating the prototype in terms of the design briefRRMU Recording results from mock-upRRPR Recording results from prototype

REFERENCES

Anning, A.: 1993, ‘Technological Capability in Primary Classrooms’, in J. S. Smith (ed.),IDATER93: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Researchand Curriculum Development, Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough,36–42.

Archer, B.: 1979, ‘The Three Rs’, Design Studies 1(1), 18–20.Barlex, D.: 1994, ‘A Comparison Between the Nature of Modelling in Science and Design

and Technology’, in F. Banks (ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London, 74–81.Barlex, D.: 1995, Nuffield Design and Technology: Student’s Book, Longman, Harlow.Brett, D.: 1986, ‘Drawing and the Ideology of Industrialization’, Design Issues: History,

Theory, Criticism 3(2), 59–72.Constable, H.: 1994b, ‘A Study of Aspects of Design and Technology Capability at Key Stage

1 and 2’, in J. S. Smith (ed.), IDATER94: International Conference on Design andTechnology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough Universityof Technology, Loughborough, 9–14.

Cross, N.: 1994, Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design (2nd ed.),John Wiley, Chichester, UK.


Darke, J.: 1979, ‘The Primary Generator and the Design Process’, Design Studies 1(1),36–44.

Davies, T.: 1996, ‘Modelling and Creativity in Design and Technology’, in J. S. Smith(ed.), IDATER96: International Conference on Design and Technology EducationalResearch and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University of Technology,Loughborough, 16–21.

Department for Education: no date, Why Design and Technology? HMSO, London.Department for Education: 1995, Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO,

London.Eastman, C. M.: 1970, ‘On the Analysis of Intuitive Design Processes’, in G. T. Moore

(ed.), Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning. Proceedings of theDesign Methods Group First International Conference, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 21–37.

Evans, M. & Wormald, P.: 1993, ‘The Future Role of Virtual and Physical Modelling inIndustrial Design’, in J. S. Smith (ed.), IDATER93: International Conference on Designand Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, LoughboroughUniversity of Technology, Loughborough, 97–101.

French, T. E., Svensen, C. L., Helsel, J. D. & Urbanick, B.: 1977, Mechanical Drawing,McGraw-Hill Ryerson, New York.

Garner, S.: 1994, ‘The Importance of Graphic Modelling in Design Activity’, in F. Banks(ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London, 68–73.

Garratt, J.: 1991, Design and Technology, Cambridge University, Cambridge.Goldschmidt, G.: 1991, ‘The Dialectics of Sketching’, Creativity Research Journal 4, 123–143.Gradwell, J. B., Welch, M. & Martin, E.: 1996a, Technology: Shaping Our World (3rd ed.),

Goodheart-Willcox, South Holland, Illinois.Gradwell, J. B., Welch, M. & Martin, E.: 1996b, Technology: Shaping Our World, Activity

Manual (3rd ed.), Goodheart-Willcox, South Holland, Illinois.Gradwell, J. B., Welch, M. & Martin, E.: 1996c, Technology: Shaping Our World, Teacher’s

Book (3rd ed.), Goodheart-Willcox, South Holland, Illinois.Hennessy, S. & Murphy, P.: 1999, ‘The Potential for Collaborative Problem Solving in Design

and Technology’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 9, 1–36.Herbert, D. M.: 1993, Architectural Study Drawings, Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Jeffery, J. R.: 1991, ‘An Investigation into the Effect of Systematic Design Methods in

Craft, Design and Technology (CDT)’, International Journal of Technology and DesignEducation 1(3), 141–157.

Johnsey, R.: 1995, ‘The Design Process-Does it Exist? A Critical Review of Published Modelsfor the Design Process in England and Wales’, International Journal of Technology andDesign Education 5, 199–217.

Kafai, Y. B.: 1995, Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children’sLearning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Kimbell, R.: 1997, Assessing Technology: International trends in Curriculum and Assessment,Open University, Buckingham, UK.

Liddament, T.: 1993, ‘Using Models in Design and Technology Education: Some Conceptualand Pedagogic Issues’, in J. S. Smith (ed.), IDATER93: International Conference on Designand Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, LoughboroughUniversity of Technology, Loughborough, 15–20.

Lowe, R. K.: 1993, ‘Constructing a Mental Representation from an Abstract TechnicalDiagram’, Learning and Instruction 3, 157–179.

Lyle, S.: 1996, ‘An Analysis of Collaborative Group Work in the Primary School andFactors Relevant to its Success’, Language and Education 10(1), 13–32.

Ministry of Education and Training: 1995, Broad-based Technological Education, Grades 10,11 and 12, Queen’s Printer, Toronto.

Ministry of Education and Training: 1998, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1–8: Scienceand Technology, Queen’s Printer, Toronto.

Murphy, P. & Davidson, M.: 1998, Evaluation – Second Phase: Nuffield Design andTechnology in the Primary Curriculum, The Open University: Milton Keynes, UK.

SKETCHING 147

Office for Standards in Education.: 1998, Secondary Education 1993–97: A Review ofSecondary Schools in England, OfStEd, London.

Olszweski, E. J.: 1981, The Draughtsman’s Eye: Late Renaissance Schools and Styles,Cleveland Museum of Art/Indiana University, Cleveland, OH.

Parker, J.: 1998, ‘You Shouldn’t be Talking, You Should be Getting on with Your Work!’,Nuffield Design and Technology upDaTe 3(2), 17–18.

Purcell, T.: 1998, ‘Editorial’, Design Studies 19(4), 385–387.Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: 1999, The Review of the National Curriculum in

England: The Consultation Materials, QCA, London.Robbins, E.: 1997, Why Architects Draw, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Schenk, P.: 1997, ‘The Role of Drawing in Graphic Design and the Implications for

Curriculum Planning’, Journal of Art and Design Education 16(1), 73–82.Schön, D. A.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching

and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Sparkes, J.: 1993, ‘Some Differences Between Science and Technology’, in R. McCormick,

C. Newey & J. Sparkes (eds.), Technology for Technology Education, Addison-Wesley,Wokingham, UK, 25–36.

Temple, S.: 1994, ‘Thought Made Visible – the Value of Sketching’, Co-design Journal 1,16–25.

Tipping, C.: 1983, ‘Acquiring Design Skills for Teaching – a Self-help Suggestion’, Studiesin Design Education, Craft and Technology 16(1), 12–14.

Vygotsky, L.: 1986, Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Welch, M.: 1996, The Strategies Used by Ten Grade 7 Students, Working in Single-Sex Dyads,

to Solve a Technological Problem, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University,Montreal.

Welch, M.: 1998, ‘Students’ Use of Three-Dimensional Modelling while Designing andMaking a Solution to a Technological Problem’, International Journal of Technologyand Design Education 8, 241–260.

THE AUTHORS

Malcolm Welch PhD conducts research and has published widely in design and technologyeducation. Current research interests include 2D and 3D modelling as an educative experi-ence, methodological issues arising from the application of qualitative research methods tothe analysis of students’ design strategies, how research findings can inform classroompractice, and development of approaches to the integration of science and technology at theelementary level. This research is conducted with colleagues at several UK sites, includingthe Nuffield Foundation and Brunel University. He has worked on major curriculum projectsin England, America and Canada, and has co-authored six textbooks.

David Barlex PhD directs the Nuffield Design and Technology Projects. The Nuffield D&Tmaterials for 11–14 year old students were published in May 1995; materials for 14–16year old students from May 1996. He is currently working on the new Nuffield initiative‘Design and technology in the primary curriculum’, the revision of the Nuffield secondaryschool materials and developing the activities of the field officers who support secondaryschool teachers using the Nuffield materials. He is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Education,Brunel University. He has a special interest in the professional development of teachersand teaching methods that develop design and technology capability.

Hee Sook Lim MEd is a research assistant at the Faculty of Education, Queen’s University,Kingston, Ontario. She has taught Music, English and Cooperative Education at the highschool level. She also has experience teaching at-risk students at an alternative school. Hercurrent research focuses on female ethnic students’ perceptions of their teachers’ ethnicity.


sketching: friend or foe to the novice designer?

Documents