Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An exploration of the variables contributing to graphical education students’ CAD modelling capability

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

Abstract

This paper reports on a study exploring the variables that contribute to upper second level students’ capability in a digital graphical modelling exercise in the field of technology education. The study evolves previous work in the area conducted in different contexts such as teacher education. Findings indicate deficiencies in second-level students’ digital modelling abilities and a significant relationship between students’ analytical, strategic and visuospatial abilities are presented. The paper discusses these findings as they relate to pedagogical reasoning processes and present the necessity to broaden the conception of graphical capability within digital CAD modelling contexts. Some key implications for technology education programmes and pedagogical approaches are discussed in conclusion.

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

  • Ault, H. K. (2003). A comparison of solid modelling approaches. In American society for engineering education annual conference and exposition. Nashville.

  • Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new compnent of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4(11), 417–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, R. E. (1999). Developing the EDG Curriculum for the 21st Century: a team effort. In ASEE annual conference and exposition. Charlotte.

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House,83(2), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhavnani, S., & John, B. (1997). From sufficient to efficient usage: an analysis of strategic knowledge. In Chi 97 conference proceedings (pp. 91–98). Atlanta: Georgia.

  • Black, P., & Harrison, G. (1985). In place of confusion: Technology and science in the school curriculum. London: Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust and the National Centre for School Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branoff, T. J., & Dobelis, M. (2014). Relationship between students’ spatial visualization ability and their ability to create 3D constraint-based models from various types of drawings. In 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition. Indianapolis.

  • Cabeza, R., & Nyberg, L. (2000). Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,12(1), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester, I. (2007). Teaching for CAD expertise. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,17(1), 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester, I. (2008). 3D-CAD: Modern technology—Outdated pedagogy. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,12(1), 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakers, J. R. (2005). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,15(2), 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Argembau, A., Ortoleva, C., Jumentier, S., & VanderLinden, M. (2010). Component processes underlying future thinking. Memory and Cognition,38(6), 809–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2012). an evaluation of the assessment of graphical education at junior cycle in the Irish system. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,17(2), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2015). Spatial skills and success in problem solving within engineering education. In 6th Research in Engineering Education Symposium DIT, July 13–15.

  • Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2018). Exploring the use of electroencephalography to gather objective evidence of cognitive processing during problem solving. Journal of Science Education and Technology,27, 114–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, W. (2006). The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A European perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,16, 307–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A., Gilroy, P. & Hartley, D. (2002). Rethinking teacher education: An interdisciplinary analysis. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review,102(2), 211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,42(3), 255–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,38(1), 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, D. A. (2004). Education and training for CAD in the auto industry. Computer-Aided Design,36(14), 1431–1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo,23(1), 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagel, C. (2004). Technology profile: An assessment strategy for technological literacy. The Journal of Technology Studies,30(4), 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, R. D., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education,24, 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching,14(1), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimmestad, B. J. (1985). Using computer graphics for the development of spatial visualization. In American Society for Engineering education, p. 530.

  • Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues,19(1), 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guay, R. (1976). Purdue spatial vizualization test. Princeton: Educational testing service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassabis, D., & Maguire, E. A. (2007). Deconstructing episodic memory with construction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11(7), 299–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., vanBraak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education,51, 1499–1509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., & Diwakaran, R. P. (2011). An educational exercise examining the role of model attributes on the creation and alteration of CAD models. Computers & Education,57, 1749–1761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2004). Ideas and ideation. The Journal of Design and Technology Education,9(3), 136–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,14(3), 281–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcgarr, O. (2011). The elephant in the room: the influence of prevailing pedagogical practice on the integration of Design and Communication Graphics in the post-primary classroom. In E. Norman & N. Seery (Eds.), Graphicacy and Modelling. UK: Loughborough.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarr, O., & Seery, N. (2011). Parametric pedagogy: Integrating parametric CAD in Irish post-primary schools. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal,16(2), 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCCA (2007). Leaving Certificate Design and Communication Graphics Syllabus, Dublin.

  • Norris, K., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,36(1), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlando, J. (2009). Understanding changes in teachers’ ICT practices: A longitudinal perspective. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,18(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Jackson, G. (2000). Design and technology in the school curriculum. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Learning to Teach Design and Technology in the secondary school (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory into Practice,41(4), 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education,100(3), 354–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, J., Ridge, J., Dickinson, A., & Whitwam, R. (1998). CAD training using interactive computer sessions. In American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition conference proceedings.

  • Rynne, A., Gaughran, W. F., & Seery, N. (2011). Defining the variables that contribute to developing 3D CAD modelling expertise. In E. Norman, & N. Seery (Eds.), Graphicacy and modelling (pp. 161–178). Loughborough.

  • Schacter, D. L., & Addis, D. R. (2007). ‘The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory: Remembering the past and imagining the future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences,362, 773–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seery, N., Lynch, R., & Dunbar, R. (2011). A review of the nature, provision and progression of graphical education in Ireland. In E. Norman, & N. Seery (Eds.), Graphicacy and modelling. Loughborough.

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review,57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorby, S. (2000). Spatial abilities and their relationship to effective learning of 3-D modeling software. Engineering Design Graphics Journal,64(3), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorby, S. A. (2007). Developing 3D spatial skills for engineering students. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education,13(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorby, S. (2009). Educational research in developing 3-D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education,31(3), 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillings, N. A., Weisler, S. E., Chase, C. H., Feinstein, M. H., Garfield, J. L., & Rissland, E. L. (1995). Cognitive science: An introduction. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., vanMerrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,10(3), 251–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23, 727–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(4), 817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multiliteracies approach for democracy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,19(3), 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J., Iglesias, J., & Barak, M. (2008). Problem based learning: Application to technology education in three countries. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,18, 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Thomas Delahunty

  2. Athlone Institute of Technology, Athlone, Ireland

    Niall Seery & Rónán Dunbar

  3. Institute of Applied Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Michael Ryan

Authors
  1. Thomas Delahunty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niall Seery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rónán Dunbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Delahunty.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delahunty, T., Seery, N., Dunbar, R. et al. An exploration of the variables contributing to graphical education students’ CAD modelling capability. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 389–411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09503-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09503-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation