Learning Theories: Applications for Instruction in Constraint-Based Solid Modeling and Other Engineering Graphics Topics

Constraint-based modeling tools, as well as computer graphics tools in general, offer the user many choices in commands and techniques for creating graphics, which forces the user to have a strategy or plan as they proceed. The formulation of this plan is often dependent on the integration of existing knowledge and current factors, such as customer specifications and the time element assigned to the particular project. In addition, the user must have a thorough understanding of the software functionality and the ability to gather information related to implementing a particular modeling strategy. This process of strategy development and implementation coincides with components of learning theory. As engineering graphics educators, it is helpful to reflect on how students learn in our classrooms and laboratories as well as reflect on how we develop instruction. This paper outlines three theories of learning that are applicable to graphics education, discusses the assumptions about the learner and the learning environment, presents the components of learning for each theory, discusses major issues related to complex learning and designing instruction, and summarizes some of the criticisms and contributions to education of each theory. Indeed, a process is presented for applying elements of these learning theories to constraint-based modeling

Spatial Visualization Ability and Students' Ability to Model Objects from Engineering Assembly Drawing Information

During the Spring 2013 semester a study was conducted in a junior-level constraint-based solid modeling course at North Carolina State University to verify the results of a similar study conducted in the Fall of 2012 in the same course. Students were administered the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of Rotations (PSVT:R) and the Mental Cutting Test (MCT) and then were asked to model the parts from information given in an assembly drawing. Relationships were examined between the PSVT:R, MCT, modeling test, final project, and final exam. This paper will present the results of this study

Students’ Ability to Model Parts from Various Types of Drawings and the Relationship to Other Measures in Engineering Graphics Courses

Engineering graphics educators have been studying students’ modeling strategies and methods of evaluating models for approximately twenty years. Over the last two years studies have been conducted to gain an understanding of students’ engineering graphics literacy by having students read an assembly drawing, visualize the various parts, and then model the parts within a constraint-based modeling program. These studies revealed that the modeling test used was related to other measures of student success in courses – spatial visualization ability, score on the final project, and score on the final exam. Some of the concerns raised through conducting these studies were that the time required to complete the test and the time required to evaluate the models was too long. Recommendations included using a shorter modeling activity, examining a more efficient way of evaluating the models, and conducting qualitative methods for evaluating student modeling strategies

The Relationship between Students' Ability to Model Objects from Assembly Drawing Information and Spatial Visualization Ability as Measured by the PSVT:R and MCT

During the Fall 2012 semester a study was conducted in a junior-level constraint-based modeling course to determine the relationship between students' ability to create solid models when given an assembly drawing and their spatial visualization ability. Students were administered the PSVT:R and the MCT and were then given an assembly drawing and asked to model as many of the seven parts as possible during a 110 minute class period. The parts in the assembly ranged in complexity from a ball to a valve body. Students were given a ruler to measure parts on the Bsize drawing and determine sizes of features based on the given scale (2:1). Relationships were examined between the PSVT:R, MCT, modeling activity, final project and the final exam. This paper will present the results of this study and discuss implications for future research