Asee peer logo

Re-configuring an Engineering Drawing Course: Mapping Goals and Methods to Leverage CADD Functionality

Download Paper |


2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition


Vancouver, BC

Publication Date

June 26, 2011

Start Date

June 26, 2011

End Date

June 29, 2011



Conference Session

ETD Design II: Mechanical Engineering Technology

Tagged Division

Engineering Technology

Page Count


Page Numbers

22.1212.1 - 22.1212.22



Permanent URL

Download Count


Request a correction

Paper Authors


Roelof Harm deVries University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown

visit author page

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Lafayette College, 1981,
M.S,. Ag. Engineering, Cornell University, 1987,
P.E., Pennsylvania and Maryland,
25 years industry experience: machine design and engineering management.
Teaching since 2008.

visit author page

Download Paper |


Re-configuring an Engineering Drawing Course: Mapping Goals and Methods to Leverage CADD Functionality The availability and rapid evolution of Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CADD)software plays a central role in shaping drawing classes in several ways. First, students must beable to gain competency in the methods extant in industry. Second, ever-more powerful CADDtools bring with them the possibility of new teaching methods. Finally, the rate of change intechnology requires an engineering (technology) program to continually refresh its curriculum inorder to best meet the needs of its students. This paper illustrates a procedure for re-configuring a first-year Engineering(Technology) drawing course in a way that connects instructional activities and exercises withclearly-defined goals. The procedure maps those goals from the old to the new lesson plans evenas methods are changed to leverage CADD functionality. The context of this illustration is a course that has traditionally been taught with anemphasis on manual (drawing board) over CADD work. The course and the approach to its reconfiguration are built on the foundationalpedagogical approach of learning by doing, as they are learning a skill, not just knowledge. Thebasic cycle of “Hear, See, Do, Receive Correction, Do Again” is implemented both on the boardand with CADD. The reconfiguration of the course was motivated by a desire to increase the students’competency on CADD, as well as increasing their exposure to a broad range of CADDfunctionality. This drove an increase in the amount of time the students are using CADD. Somegoals of the course cannot be mapped into the CADD environment. These include competencywith lettering, geometric constructions, use of drawing instruments, and descriptive geometry.Other goals can be met either on the board or on CADD. Examples include proper techniquesfor making a drawing, practicing orthographic projections, sections, and auxiliary views. In thereconfigured course, these are taught almost exclusively on CADD. The effectiveness of the reconfigured course will be assessed in several ways. First,students taking the course before and after reconfiguration will be given the same or similarexams. Any significant drop in scores will indicate that course goals are not being met. Second,students’ performance in competencies not previously covered will be assessed by exercises orexams.

deVries, R. H. (2011, June), Re-configuring an Engineering Drawing Course: Mapping Goals and Methods to Leverage CADD Functionality Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18632

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2011 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015