Aligning a CAD course constructively: telling-to-peer and writing-to-peer activities for efficient use of CAD in design curricula

Abstract

As the literature points out the lack of efficient use of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) in design curricula, we aimed to align a CAD course based on student-centered learning theories. While designating a constructively aligned CAD course, the intended learning outcomes were specified in relation to the knowledge types classified for the CAD learning process. Based on these outcomes, two genuine learning activities were developed which were namely telling-to-peer and writing-to-peer. These activities put novice CAD learners into the center where they could construct and reconstruct the knowledge while transmitting it to a predefined audience. The telling-to-peer activity referred to a tutoring experience in which they explained specific commands to their classmates. Tutorials in this course functioned as a writing-to-peer activity where the learners were asked to prepare for a specific audience. Additionally, we aligned the assessment strategy with these learning activities through formative assessment tasks. To get insights especially about these learning activities from the students, a qualitative course evaluation template was conducted at the end of the semester. In conclusion, a model associating the knowledge types with learning outcomes in terms of their complexities was developed for CAD courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Photographed by Author 1

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Graph adapted from Nanyang Technological University (n.d.)

Fig. 5

Adapted from Biggs (1996)

Notes

  1. 1.

    The students’ responses were translated from Turkish to English by the authors. The translation was checked independently by two design researchers to ensure the equivalence of meaning.

References

  1. Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers and Education, 47(4), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asperl, A. (2005). How to teach CAD. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 2(1–4), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2005.10738395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aydoğan, Ü. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli tasarım yazılımlarının stratejik kullanımının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluating the strategic use of CAD software]. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Science Engineering and Technology, Istanbul Technical University. ITU Academic Open Archive, http://hdl.handle.net/11527/8528.

  5. Babapour, M., Rahe, M., & Pedgley, O. (2012). The influence of self-reflective diaries on students’ design processes. In DesignEd Asia Conference 2012 (pp. 1–13).

  6. Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Başa, İ, & Şenyapılı, B. (2005). The (in)secure position of the design jury towards computer generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baxter, D. H., & Mandigo, A. (2005). Comparing different teaching models in a first year computer aided design course. In Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference & exposition (pp. 1–11).

  10. Bean, J. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bhavnani, S. K. (2000). Designs conducive to the use of efficient strategies. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 338–345).

  12. Bhavnani, S. K., & Bates, M. J. (2002). Separating the knowledge layers: Cognitive analysis of search knowledge through hierarchical goal decompositions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39(1), 204–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhavnani, S., Garrett, J., & Shaw, D. (1993). Leading indicators of CAD experience. In CAAD Futures ’93 (pp. 313–334).

  14. Bhavnani, S. K. & John, B. E. (1996). Exploring the unrealized potential of computer-aided drafting. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 332–339).

  15. Bhavnani, S. K., & John, B. E. (1997). From sufficient to efficient usage: An analysis of strategic knowledge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 91–98).

  16. Bhavnani, S. K., John, B. E., & Flemming, U. (1999). The strategic use of CAD: An empirically inspired, theory-based course. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 42–49).

  17. Bhavnani, S. K., Reif, F., & John, B. E. (2001). Beyond command knowledge: Identifying and teaching strategic knowledge for using complex computer applications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 229–236).

  18. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead.

  20. Bin, Q., Weiping, H., Suihuai, Y., & Xiaorning, S. (2010). Application of computer aided industrial design in model making course teaching. In 2010 international conference on educational and information technology (pp. 165–168).

  21. Boud, D. (2013). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education learning from & with other (pp. 1–20). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chapman, G. (1995). Computer aided design in industrial design education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 14(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1995.tb00610.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chester, I. (2007). Teaching for CAD expertise. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9015-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. Çil, E., & Pakdil, O. (2007). Design instructor’s perspective on the role of computers in architectural education: A case study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve novel problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(2), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00060.2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications Inc.

  30. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dankwort, C. W., Weidlich, R., Guenther, B., & Blaurock, J. E. (2004). Engineers’ CAx education—It’s not only CAD. Computer-Aided Design, 36(14), 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2004.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Demirci, A. (2011). Bilgisayar destekli eğitimin grafik tasarım dersinde kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [Student views on the use of computer aided graphic design courses]. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(4), 472–484.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dönmez, S. (2013). Computer aided industrial design software selection in industrial product design education at Turkey using expert choice program. In Procedia—Social and behavioral sciences, 4th international conference on New Horizons in Education, 106, (pp. 682–689).

  34. Dosen, A. S., Sher, W., Gajendran, T. & Gu, N. (2012). Teaching CAD: The challenges of online delivery to distance learning students. In Proceedings 37th AUBEA International Conference (pp. 48–56).

  35. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Field, D. A. (2004). Education and training for CAD in the auto industry. Computer-Aided Design, 36(14), 1431–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2003.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gelmez, K. (2016). Delving into curriculum content and pedagogy of the first-year industrial design studio through reflective writing: A study on cognitive and affective processes (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gelmez, K. (2020). In quest of a successful design studio course: A course evaluation template. In R. Almendra & J. Ferreira (Eds.), Prooceedings of 1st international conference on research and education in design (REDES 2019) (pp. 110–118). Paper presented at Lisbon, 14 November 2019. London: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003046103.

  39. Gelmez, K., & Bağlı, H. (2015). Learning from students: Reflections from personal magazines in basic design course. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(1), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gelmez, K., & Bağlı, H. (2018a). Exploring the functions of reflective writing in the design studio: A study from the point of view of students. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 17(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.17.2.177_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gelmez, K., & Bağlı, H. (2018b). Tracing design students’ affective journeys through reflective writing. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 1061–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9424-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Golby, M. (1993). Case study as educational research. Exeter: Fairway Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gray, C. M. (2014). Locating the emerging design identity of students through visual and textual reflection. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society.

  44. Gül, Ö. (2015). A study on instructional methods used in CAD courses in interior architecture education. In Procedia—Social and behavioral sciences, INTE 2014, 174, (pp. 1758–1763).

  45. Gulwadi, G. B. (2009). Using reflective journals in a sustainable design studio. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(2), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370910925244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hanna, R., & Barber, T. (2001). An inquiry into computers in design: Attitudes before-attitudes after. Design Studies, 22(3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00029-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hellmer, S. (2012). Student autonomy and peer learning—An example. Högre Utbildning, 2(1), 51–54.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kurt, M., & Kurt, S. (2017). Improving design understandings and skills through enhanced metacognition: Reflective design journals. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 36(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lang, G. T., Eberts, R. E., Gabel, M. G., & Barash, M. M. (1991). Extracting and using procedural knowledge in a CAD task. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.83758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee, J., Vaajakallio, K. & Mattelmäki, T. (2011). Tracing situated effects of innovative design methods: Inexperienced designers’ practices. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on creativity and innovation in design (pp. 103–113). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  53. Major, C. H., Harris, M. S., & Zakrajsek, T. (2016). Teaching for learning 101 intentionally designed educational activities to put students on the path to success. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nanyang Technological University. (n.d.). Outcomes based teaching and learning. http://ntu.edu.sg/tlpd/tlr/DesigningYourCourse/OBTL/Pages/ConstructiveAlignment.aspx. Accessed November 2019.

  57. Nieusma, D., Malazita, J. W., Krauss, L. R., Ukleja, A. M., & Andrews, T. (2018). From learning to CAD to CADing to learn: Teaching the command, strategic, and epistemic dimensions of CAD software. Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/30543.

  58. Nyffenegger, F. (2009). Stories for Academia. In ELIA Teachers' Academy 2009.

  59. Orr, S., Blythman, M., & Mullin, J. (2004). Textual and visual interfaces in art and design education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 3(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.3.2.75/0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pütz, C., & Schmitt, F. (2003). Introduction to computer aided design—Concept of a didactically founded course. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 7(1), 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rodriguez, J., Ridge, J., Dickinson, A., & Whitwam, R. (1998). CAD training using interactive computer sessions emphasizing design intent. In Proceedings of DETC98: ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference.

  64. Soygenis, S., Soygenis, M., & Erktin, E. (2010). Writing as a tool in teaching sketching: Implications for architectural design education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01646.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stevens, G. (1997). Reflections of an apostate CAD teacher. Journal of Architectural Education, 51(1), 78–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1997.10734752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Taşlı-Pektaş, Ş, & Erkip, F. (2006). Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-3175-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Thomas, P., & Armstrong, T. (2016). “Looking away”: Private writing techniques as a form of transformational text shaping in Art & Design and the Natural Sciences. Journal of Academic Writing, 6(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v6i1.289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9380-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1990). Using student learning outcome measures in the evaluation of teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education, 13, 390–397.

    Google Scholar 

  71. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wang, X., Su, Y., Cheung, S., Wong, E., & Kwong, T. (2013). An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students’ learning approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Winn, D. & Banks, F. (2012). CAD and creativity—A new pedagogy. In PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden, 26-30(073) (pp. 488–495). Linköping University Electronic Press.

  75. Wittenborn, D. B. (2004). Development of a multimedia learning tool for a computer-aided design course. In 59th Midyear Meeting Proceedings (pp. 98–103).

  76. Wood, J. (2003). Open minds and a sense of adventure: How teachers of art and design approach technology. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 13(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00396.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Yang, F. C., & Lynch, R. (2014). The relationship between learning style preference for computer drawing and learning outcomes in a computer aided design course at a computer training center in Taiwan. Scholar: Human Sciences, 6(2), 114–120.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ye, X., Peng, W., Chen, Z., & Cai, Y. (2004). Today’s students, tomorrow’s engineers: An industrial perspective on CAD education. Computer-Aided Design, 36(14), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2003.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Yixian, D., Qihua, T., Xuan, D. & Kongde, H. (2014). CAD/CAM courses integration of theoretical teaching and practical training. In: Procedia—Social and behavioral sciences, 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences—CES 2013, Vol. 116, pp. 4297–4300.

  80. Yore, D. L., Hand, M. B., & Prain, V. (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86(5), 672–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the students who took the course and participated in our study voluntarily. We would like to extend our gratitude to Pelin Efilti, Tuğçe Ecem Tüfek Şerifoğlu and Güzide Güzelbey Esengün for their valuable contributions. We are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koray Gelmez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent to participate

All subjects are informed about the research and all consents are obtained for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

EUT 241E Computer Aided Design course.

2018–2019 Fall Semester.

QUIZ 1 (18/100)

Choose and draw one of the patterns given. Prepare a tutorial explaining how to draw the pattern in Rhinoceros.

Target audience: The students who will take EUT 241E Computer Aided Design course in Fall 2019.

Format: Zip file including.pdf (A4) and 3dm files.

Hints:

  • Start the tutorial by showing the end result.

  • Use screenshots where necessary.

  • Include and explain the critical steps.

  • Write your names, student ID, and the date on your tutorial.

Appendix 2

EUT 241E Computer Aided Design course.

2018–2019 Fall Semester.

QUIZ 2 (18/100)

Choose a kitchen appliance and model it in Rhinoceros. Prepare a tutorial explaining how to draw the model in Rhinoceros.

Target audience: The students who will take EUT 241E Computer Aided Design course in Fall 2019.

Format: Zip file including.pdf (A4) and 3dm files.

Your score will be calculated according to the formula in the following: Complexity level of the product (3) * Quality of the model and the tutorial (6).

Hints:

  • Start the tutorial by showing the images of the kitchen appliance and the end result of the model.

  • Use screenshots where necessary.

  • Include and explain the critical steps.

  • Write your names, student ID, and the date on your tutorial.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gelmez, K., Arkan, S. Aligning a CAD course constructively: telling-to-peer and writing-to-peer activities for efficient use of CAD in design curricula. Int J Technol Des Educ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09656-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • CAD pedagogy
  • Constructivist alignment
  • Strategic knowledge
  • Tutorial making