Cooperative Dynamic Approach in Engineering Teaching: Same Content and Trend Towards Better Result

This article shows the benefits of active learning compared to traditional learning. It proves the importance of a fruitful discussion between peers. It is a sample of methodological change with no curricular change. It also shows the overall satisfaction of the students, who achieved an equal or better academic performance than the students in the traditional learning environment. At the Faculty of Engineering in Bilbao, Engineering Graphics is a collegiate subject and it is assessed using a final exam. In the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 academic years, didactic interventions were carried out, introducing active methodologies in the experimental group, keeping the same content and evaluation as the control group. It is important to mention that the subject of Engineering Graphics is taught in large groups and with novel students of first course of engineering. A cooperative dynamic (jigsaw) was selected. The main feature of this method is that the students’ knowledge is developed by themselves and the teacher does not explain any theory and practice linked to the subject. The teacher advises students in their learning process. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data collected shows that the use of a coopera­tive dynamic has a positive effect on the learning process of the students

2019/2020 Election Results

Election Result

A Cognitive Approach to Spatial Visualization Assessment for First-year Engineering Students

First-year engineering (FYE) students are routinely screened for spatial ability, with the goals of predicting retention in the major and identifying those who need supplementary spatial instruction. Psychometric tests used for such screenings are often domain-general measures that lack diagnostic information to inform remedial instruction. A new approach to spatial screening is to use measures that assess perfor¬mance on authentic engineering tasks while accounting for the cognitive processes that underlie spatial thinking. We tested the utility of a relatively new spatial visualization test (the Santa Barbara Solids Test; SBST) to characterize individual differences in performance among FYE students with low mental rotation scores. The internal reliability and predictive validity of the SBST were previously demonstrated in sample populations with average spatial skill. One hundred and forty-one FYE students with low mental rotation scores completed the SBST and an engineering drawing task before instruction. We investigated the internal reliability of the SBST, patterns of performance and the validity of the test to predict performance on the drawing task. Through item analysis, we deleted problems that contributed to low internal reliability. Performance means were normally distributed. There were small significant positive correlations between the drawing task and SBST total score and subscales. The SBST shows promise for diagnosing difficul¬ties and strategies demonstrated by students who are challenged by spatial visualization. We suggest applications of the SBST to support remedial spatial instruction

Effects of Light Reflection on Spatial Visualization Ability and implications for Engineering Technology Students

Results from a number of studies indicate that the type of light generated by the reflection on the surface of different types of surfaces can influence the spatial visualization ability; however, research provides in¬consistent results. Considering this, a quasi-experimental study was conducted to identify the existence of statistically significant effects on spatial visualization ability as measured by the Mental Cutting Test and Sectional View drawing ability due to the impacts of light reflection. In particular, the study compared three types of light reflection; mirror, specular and diffuse and whether a significant difference exists among engineering technology students. According to the results of this study it is suggested that the type of light reflection provides statistically significant differences

Developing a Scale to Investigate Student’s Self-Efficacy as it Relates to Three-Dimensional Modeling

Binkley et al. (2012) contends that the economy and workplace for the 21st Century will not lie in the routine tasks of the past, instead emphasis will be put on the ability of stu¬dents to communicate, share and use information to solve increasingly complex prob¬lems. This is especially true of individuals who chose to pursue careers in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). For many engineers and technol¬ogists, at the heart of this exchange of information is the ability to model, design, and fabricate complex objects using the latest three-dimensional modeling software. Yet, for many students tackling this authoring software begins with their own perceived ability to complete said task. Eccles et al. (1983) seminal research revealed that students’ belief about their ability to complete a task is inextricably linked to their previous experience and other socialization factors. To better understand how different experiences impact students’ belief about their abilities, it is imperative to design, test and validate instruments with the ability to provide insight into students’ belief in their ability to complete a task within a given domain or self-efficacy. In an effort to address the lack of instruments designed to measure students’ self-efficacy as it relates to three-dimensional modeling, researchers conducted a study with the intent to develop, test and validate such an instrument