model accuracy. Additionally, using a larger sample size and a morediverse population, further evaluation can broaden the application of these results. The presentresults should be considered exploratory and interpreted within the context of study limitations.A manuscript is in development with more detailed information related to the theoreticalunderpinnings of the variables, suggestions for the specific use of the information, and furtherdetail into the methods used. Details are limited in this format and this paper is meant tointroduce a larger project to this audience. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underGrant No. 1900348.References[1] B. Christe & C. Feldhaus., “Exploring Engineering
) 73% 15% 12% Female (n=109) 48% 24% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Master Intermediate Novice Figure 5. Initial placement results, by gender (a) Females (n=55) (b) Males (n=64) No Training No 18% Training 31% Direct Indirect Direct Training
) into Learning Management System (LMS) based“quizzes,” b) develop sketching problems for the modules that previously did not have them, and c)compile a “sketching only” workbook suitable for use in the spatial skills course. The rationale behindthis decision was as follows: ● As we moved to online instruction, one significant criticism levied against universities was the increased cost that was an especially difficult burden for students from low SES groups. Since these are some of the students targeted for spatial skills instruction, a brief workbook would be less expensive than requiring them to have a printer and toner, a touch-screen computer/tablet, or a stylus for sketching. ● There is evidence
typically cannot be formed using the snap-cubesEach lab group consisted of 20 students with a range of spatial visualization abilities (Table3). Rather than looking on this as a hindrance, we decided to empower students in variousways. An example of this can be explained through the revolving activity shown in Figure 5.Rather than solely converging on the solution (which is B), students were encouraged todiscuss in pairs or groups why the other three options were incorrect. Students typicallysketched the profile of the objects or created 3D models in SolidWorks. Page 26.286.7 Figure 5 – Looking beyond the solutionWe
president of EWU’s SAE Motor Sports club and a student member of both SME and ASME.Ms. Shannon M. KellamJacob StewartDr. Robert E. Gerlick, Eastern Washington University Dr. Gerlick is Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology at Eastern Washington University. He teaches courses in the areas of Robotics, Mechanics, Thermodynam- ics, Fluids, CAD, and Capstone Design.Dr. B. Matthew Michaelis, Eastern Washington University Matthew Michaelis is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering Technology at Eastern Washington University in Cheney, WA. His research interests include additive manufacturing, advanced CAD modeling, and engineering pedagogy
planes. In contrast Figure 8 shows a student sketched part with chamfered corners,where the vertical edge of chamfer and the horizontal edge of the mating top surface are collinearin the drawing. When asked to describe the collinear lines, the student replied that, “Thechamfer line doesn’t look up and down, but looks like it is at an angle because of how the rest ofthe part is.” This remarkable comment indicates that the student was understanding the part in aholistic way and that the features on the isometric sketch represent edges of it in a coherentfashion.Figure 7: Coincident lines (Line A and Line B) on different planes in an isometric view.Figure 8: Student sketched chamfered corner where collinear vertical line represents two edgeson
visualization skills.Training and testing were the focal point of numerous studies [12] – [16] and they cover multiplemethods to challenge students to visualize objects and patterns in various settings. All have beenproven to help the students improve their spatial skills but without one being universallyaccepted to be 100% effective. They all demonstrated various degrees of success depending onstudents’ background, gender, resources, socio-economic status, time spent on practicing, and, ofcourse, their level of interest. As a result, the more variety of methods is available, the morechoices the faculty and students will have to select the most appropriate method for theirparticular situation.BackgroundAbout a year after the publication of the “A, B
State University. Her research focuses on (a) new literacies of online reading comprehension, particularly in complex and ill-structured learning domains, (b) teaching and learning in synchronous hy- brid learning environments, where physically present and remote participants interact in real time through such technologies as video conferencing tools and robots, and (c) the use of augmented reality in STEM education.Dr. Hannah Klautke, Michigan State University Hannah Klautke is a User Experience Research Associate with Usability/Accessibility Research and Con- sulting (Michigan State University Outreach and Engagement). She is involved in usability evaluations, focus groups, and information architecture projects for
features that would promote more meaningful engagement in the app, show the importance of high quality design and implementation of technology tools for learning and research. References [1] S. Sorby, N. Veurink, and S. Streiner, “Does spatial skills instruction improve STEM outcomes? The answer is ‘yes,’” Learning and Individual Differences , vol. 67, pp. 209–222, 2018. [2] M. Berkowitz and E. Stern, “Which cognitive abilities make the difference? Predicting academic achievements in advanced STEM studies,” Journal of Intelligence , vol. 6, no. 4, p. 48, 2018. [3] S. Sorby, B. Casey, N. Veurink, and A. Dulaney, “The role of
information will beeffectively communicated using a 2D drawing. The second step is the definition of datums.Though datums can be continually added throughout the annotation process, students areencouraged to develop a datum scheme that will fully cover specifications at this stage. Thoughchanges can be made to these after they are referenced by other elements, novices typically havedifficulty or lack the patience to do this, and resort to deletion and reinsertion (similar to makingmodifications to geometric features that “break” the CAD model). The third step is combiningindividual datums into datum reference frames (DRFs). The most common of these being theA|B|C orthogonal planar structure, though all feasible combinations based on the
erase all lines. Zoom and Pan=> pinch two fingers to zoom in or out. Move both fingers to pan.Sketch Grading and Assignment Navigation • When done with a sketch press “Submit.” If your solution is correct you will move on to the nextA)assignment, otherwise you will be asked Correct Sketch to try again. B) Incorrect Copies Sketch with of your Peek at submitted Solution assignments are sent to the Spatial
Paper ID #29041Using the Results of Certification Exam Data: A More Deliberate Approachto Improving Student LearningDr. Robert A. Chin, East Carolina University Robert A. ”Bob” Chin is a faculty member, Department of Technology Systems, College of Engineering and Technology, East Carolina University. He is a past chair of the Engineering Design Graphics Division and as of the 2020 annual conference, he will be serving as the outgoing past chair of the Division. In 2015, he completed his second term as the director of publications for the Engineering Design Graphics Division and as the Engineering Design Graphics Journal
screencast Management Making Sharing and Disscussion OK? and Retaining NO Fig.1 The process of database management and retaining The students in the experimental groups were divided into small teams with four to sixstudents in each team. Screencast homework was given to students and all project activities wereconducted in teams. Each student in a team was assigned with a tag A or B: “tag A” forgenerating a screencast and “tag B” for providing comments. Students with different tags tookone of the two following roles: either making the screencasts or providing comments. Screencastexercises were designed to promote self-learning
Paper ID #13075Engineering Graphics Concepts: A Delphi StudyDr. Mary A. Sadowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette Mary A. Sadowski has been at Purdue since 2003 and until September 1, 2011 served as the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Learning in the Purdue College of Technology where she provided leadership for strategic initiatives in undergraduate education. As a professor of Computer Graphics, her research interests include enhancing visualization skills, cre- ative thinking, and learning styles. She is currently funded to begin gathering data to create a concept inventory for engineering graphics. As
Paper ID #12499Transforming a Computer Graphics Department from Traditional EducationMethods to a Polytechnic ApproachDr. Patrick E. Connolly, Purdue University, West Lafayette Dr. Patrick Connolly is a professor and interim department head of the Department of Computer Graph- ics Technology in the College of Technology at Purdue University. He has extensive experience in the aerospace design and CAD/CAE software industries, and has been serving in higher education for almost twenty years. Dr. Connolly has a BS degree in Design and Graphics Technology and an MS in Com- puter Integrated Manufacturing from Brigham Young
Paper ID #30111Engineering graphics in a community-college setting: Challenges andopportunitiesDr. Hannah Dawes Budinoff, Pima Community College Hannah D. Budinoff is a researcher interested in additive manufacturing, geometric manufacturability analysis, design for manufacturing, and engineering education. She received her BS in mechanical engi- neering from the University of Arizona and recently completed her PhD in mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, where she was awarded an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. Dr. Budinoff teaches CAD classes in her role as Instructional Faculty at Pima Community
it through one of five diagrams ofan aperture. For Keyhole problems, once the object starts through the aperture, it cannot beturned in space. Figure 1 shows a sample problem from the keyhole portion of the test. Figure 1. Keyhole problems from the PAT (Correct answer is A)The second type of problem on the PAT is called the Top/Front/End problem. Theseproblems are essentially missing view problems where students are presented with two viewsof an object, e.g., the top and front views, and they must choose the missing view from thechoices given. Figure 2 shows an example problem from the Top/Front/End portion of thePAT. Figure 2. Top/Front/End problems from the PAT (Correct answer is B
Paper ID #15834Development and Evaluation of a Computer Program to Assess Student CADModelsDr. Steven Joseph Kirstukas, Central Connecticut State University Steve Kirstukas is an Associate Professor at CCSU, where he teaches courses in solid modeling, MATLAB programming, and engineering mechanics. He is exploring the use of computer-aided assessment of CAD files to give consistent, accurate, and quick feedback to students. He has degrees in civil and mechanical engineering, with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. Steve has worked in industry as a civil engineer, software developer, biomechanics researcher, and
Paper ID #11432Enhancing a Blended Learning Approach to CAD Instruction Using LeanManufacturing PrinciplesDr. Derek M Yip-Hoi, Western Washington University Dr. Yip-Hoi received his Ph.D. from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Michigan in 1997. His dissertation research focused on developing Computer-Aided Process Planning methods and software tools to support automation of machining on Mill/Turn machining centers. In 2003 he joined the faculty of the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of British Columbia. His appointment included a position as junior chair of the NSERC
Paper ID #12654Comparison of On-line versus Paper Spatial Testing MethodsMs. Norma L Veurink, Michigan Technological University Norma Veurink is a Senior Lecturer in the Engineering Fundamentals Department at Michigan Techno- logical University where she teaches introductory engineering courses and a spatial visualization course designed for engineering students with poorly developed spatial visualization skills. Ms. Veurink man- ages several summer programs that introduce middle and high school students to engineering. She is active in the Engineering Design Graphics Division of ASEE.Dr. A. J. Hamlin, Michigan
Paper ID #26665Using Digital Sketching and Augmented Reality Mobile Apps to Improve Spa-tial Visualization in a Freshmen Engineering CourseDr. Diana Bairaktarova, Virginia Tech Dr. Diana Bairaktarova is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Through real-world engineering applications, Dr. Bairaktarova’s experiential learning research spans from engineering to psychology to learning sciences, as she uncovers how individual performance is influenced by aptitudes, spatial skills, personal interests and direct manipulation of mechanical objects.Dr. Lelli Van Den Einde, University of
Paper ID #17482The Effect of Soft Classroom: A New Learning Environment IntegratingMOOCs into Conventional Classrooms for College StudentsProf. Shih-Chung Jessy Kang P.E., National Taiwan UniversityYifen Li, National Taiwan University A graduate Student of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University.Dr. ChingMei Tseng c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 The Effect of the Soft Classroom: A New Learning Environment integrating MOOCs into Conventional Classrooms for University Students!!Abstract !In the last two decades, new insights into the nature of teaching
leading the development and implementation of solid modeling conceptsin the CAD industry.Two institutions with different approaches in their graphics offerings are, institution A (Universityof Wisconsin - Waukesha) there is now a hybrid semester course where half of the course usesAutodesk’s AutoCAD, and the other half of the semester is done utilizing Autodesk’s Inventor.The other institution is B (Western Michigan University) which offers a semester course based oninstruction utilizing solid modeling packages, first Siemens’ NX and then Dessault Systemes’CATIA. The offerings at both institutions are for students that have already decided on engineeringor engineering technology programs, and both institutions are in a semester schedule. These
challenge with remote learning is ensuring all students have equitable access tothe Internet. The Spatial Vis app can work in offline mode if access to the Internet is a problem.Essentially, grading of assignments can occur locally and progress in the app is saved until theapp can connect with the internet and sync student progress with eGrove Education’s servers.3. Evaluation MethodsThis evaluation takes place in two college engineering CAD courses in San Diego, CA. The firstcourse denoted as Class A (CIVE 121 Computer Graphics for the Built Environment) was taughtat San Diego State University. It was on a semester system and was approximately 5-6 weeksinto the semester when the pandemic hit. The other course denoted as Class B (SE 3
Modeling? Direct modeling is an intuitive approach to creating geometry without the burden ofhistory-based dependencies. History-based (procedural) parameterization of modelsrequires the user to thoughtfully consider the important model input/output parameters;independent dimensions are identified and defined by the user during model creation whiledependent dimensions are calculated based on procedure (history tree rebuild). However,instead of storing the sequence of feature creation, a direct model is based on the boundaryrepresentation (b-rep) of the solid. The model is regenerated based on a set of geometricconstraint equations rather than the sequential reconstruction of feature history. This is asimple but powerful method of specifying
results on sustainabilitysystems-thinking skills will be presented. The sustainability interventions in the courseinclude (i) just-in-time lectures to introduce sustainability concepts (ii) technology-in-social contexts activities intended to help students understand how social context caninfluence the success or failure of an engineering design and (iii) contextualized studentprojects, which include (a) individual projects that address wasteful human behavior andenvironmental sustainability in product designs and (b) team projects that address social,environmental and economic sustainability aspects in designing large engineeringstructures.The assessment plan includes an investigation of students’ a) perceptions of thesustainability-related
Evaluation. 407-409.Dijkhuis, Renee R, Tim B Ziermans, Sophie Van Rijn, Wouter G Staal, and Hanna Swaab.(2017). Self-Regulation and Quality of Life in High-Functioning Young Adults with Autism. Autism 21, no. 7, 896–906.Doğa Gatos and Asim Evren Yantaç.(2020). “Oxygen Mask”: Understanding How Autism Parents Seek Support. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (NordiCHI ’20),Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.Eirini Christinaki, Nikolas Vidakis, and Georgios Triantafyllidis. (2013). Facial expression recognition teaching to preschoolers with autism: a natural user interface approach. In Proceedings of the 6th Balkan
with real-world examplesas compared to theoretical examples traditionally employed in introductory engineering graphicscourses.This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1725874. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NationalScience Foundation.References[1] J. V. Ernst, T.O. Williams, A. C. Clark, and D. P. Kelly, “Psychometric properties of the PSVT:R Outcome Measure: A preliminary study of introductory engineering design graphics,” in 70th EDGD Midyear Conference Proceedings, Daytona, FL, USA, January 24-26, 2016.[2] S. A. Sorby and B. J. Baartmans
% 84% Grade 82% 80% CGsection 78% GDsection 76% 74% 72% a b c d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 StudentcourselearningoutcomeFigure 6. Course assessment results for each learning outcomeThe common learning outcomes are:At the end of the course, students will demonstrate the ability to: a) Communicate mechanical designs via freeform, orthographic and axonometric hand sketching b) Read and interpret mechanical drawings of parts and assemblies c) Demonstrate familiarity
, basically the difference between Pre- scoreand Post- score for each student is used. However, there were three different ways of identifyingsuch difference as: a) raw score increase (decrease) b) percentage improvement c) tier indicator of becoming top-scorer.Each one of these measurements have value per se, and can be used in different situations tomeasure the improvement shown by the students. The more direct measurement is the firstoption, raw score, which is basically the Post-score minus the Pre-score; this is a valid indicatorhowever it might misrepresent the actual improvement since a student with low score in the Pre-test has more room to get a high increase, which does not imply automatically that it is at thelevel of