ASEE | Engineering Design Graphics Division 66th Mid-Year Conference An educational Global Graphics perspective January 22-24, 2012 Galveston, Texas An educational Global Graphics perspective TECHNICAL SESSION I The Web as a Resource Developing 3D Modeling Courses for Online Teaching: Instructional Technologies to Consider . 1. Kathleen Mapson, Aaron Clark, North Carolina State University and Jeremy Ernst, Virginia Tech Online Delivery of Technical Graphics Courses . 1.7. Jon Duff, Purdue University Using Online Catalog Part Files in Graphics and Design Courses . 26. Holly Ault, Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Tim Thomas, PARTsolutions LLC A Study to Examine the Role of Print, Web, and Social Media for Recruiting Students . 30. Mary Sadowski, Judy Birchman and Brandon Karcher, Purdue University TECHNICAL SESSION II Visualization & Perception Engineering Graphics Literacy: Measuring Students’ Ability to Model Objects from Assembly Drawing Information . 41. Ted Branoff, North Carolina State University and Modris Dobelis, Riga Technical University 2D Traditional Techniques with 3D Graphics Visualization . 53 James Wronecki, East Tennessee State University Spatial Visualization of Geons through the Modification of the Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test (ROT) . 57. Nathan Bench and Pat Connolly, Purdue University The Effectiveness of Real & Augmented Models to Advance the Spatial Abilities of Visual/Haptic Engineering Students . 6.4 Katie Huffman and Craig Miller, Purdue University The Intermediate Role of the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad in Developing Sketching Expertise . 7.9 Diarmaid Lane, Niall Seery and Seamus Gordon, University of Limerick TECHNICAL SESSION III Outcomes & Assessment An Overview of Tests of Cognitive Spatial Ability . 92 Nancy Study, Virginia State University Using First Year Engineering Graphics Course for Student Outcomes and Assessment . 98. George Agoki and Boon-Chai Ng, Andrews University Engineering Graphics Educational Outcomes for the Global Engineer . 1.0.9 Ronald Barr, University of Texas at Austin A Delphi Study as a First Step in Developing a Concept Inventory for Engineering Graphics . .1.26. Mary Sadowski, Purdue University and Sheryl Sorby, The Ohio State University ii ASEE Engineering Design Graphics Division 66th EDGD66th Mid-yearMid Year Conference Conference TECHNICAL SESSION IV Focus Groups TECHNICAL SESSION V Graphics Education Implementing Reverse Engineering Methodology into First Year Engineering Curricula from a Student Perspective . .1.33 Trevor Wanamaker and Craig Miller, Purdue University Open-ended Project Learning Experience in Graphical Communication . .1.49 Lulu Sun and Christopher Grant, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Dimensional Tolerances: Back to the Basics . .1.57. Kevin Devine, Illinois State University Factors Facilitating the Need for a Visual Graphics Animation Baccalaureate Degree at a Mid-South University . .1.6.5 Argie Nichols and Georgia Hale, University of Arkansas - Fort Smith TECHNICAL SESSION VI Graphics Methods & Issues Examining Active Learning: Review and Current Thinking . .1.8.1. Alice Scales and Terri Varnado, North Carolina State University Graphics Education Needed for Upper Division Courses in Mechanical Engineering Design . .1.8.8. Boon-Chai Ng and George Agoki, Andrews University Virtual Reality Learning Effects in College and Training Environments . .1.98. Argie Nichols, Bobby Jones, Jr., University of Arkansas - Fort Smith and Debra Steele, Oklahoma State University MEDIA SHOWCASE SESSION Toward Defining Engineering Design Graphics Journal Goals . .20.7. Robert Chin, East Carolina University Augmented Cinematography: A Look at the Use of Augmented Reality in Film Production . .21.4 Thomas Haley-Hermiz, Patrick Connolly, Adam Gasper, Vincent Scalone, Nick Sceusa, and Chris Staehler, Purdue University iii Proceedings design by — Judy Birchman Computer Graphics Technology Purdue University Copyright 2012. The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). ASEE is not responsible for statements made or opinions expressed in the publication. Non-profit libraries are freely permitted to make fair use of its contents, such as to photocopy a paper for use iv in teaching or research. Developing 3D Modeling Courses for Online Teaching: Instructional Technologies to Consider Kathleen H. Mapson Department of Instructional Technology Georgia Perimeter College Jeremy V. Ernst Department of Teaching and Learning Virginia Tech Aaron C. Clark Department of STEM Education North Carolina State University Abstract The ability to develop 3D modeling courses for online instruction has existed for years. Due to the instructional complexity of 3D modeling, few have sought to develop these courses for online teaching. In an effort to better understand the components necessary for effective course development, this study collectively aggregated information on several areas that directly impact student response and retention in online environments; these areas included Learner- Centeredness, Course Design (including instructional and interactive technologies), and Drawing and Modeling Content. This paper describes and presents data associated with the instructional and interactive technology components retained from the study’s Course Design category. Introduction Graphics has long been a language within itself, containing orthography, grammar, style, idioms, and abbreviations (French, 1976), and throughout time has been the method in which engineering prefers to communicate in order to successfully convey and generate design ideas (Barr, 2004). Over the last two decades the profession of engineering graphics has witnessed major shifts in the programs of study, as well as the content areas being taught. With the introduction of computer technologies, engineering graphics education has been significantly influenced, not only altering the curricula, but also the instruction of individual courses (Barr, 2004; Clark, 2001). Considering these technological innovations, it is essential that engineering graphics education moves forward considering alternative methods of instruction (Harris & Meyers, 2007). Engineering graphics educators must not only consider the traditional class settings and methods of instructional delivery, but must also explore nontraditional education environments such as online teaching and learning. 66th EDGD Mid-Year Conference Proceedings 1 Clark, Petlick, and Scales (2004) noted that for engineering and technical graphics, the greatest advancement toward course teaching has been the development of online instruction and process tutorials. Because development of 3D modeling courses for online instruction is hardly prevalent, there exist the need to more lucidly identify components for developing and implementing a quality online course. Instructional and interactive technologies play an identifiable role in course development in engineering and technical graphics and warrant specific distinction in framed investigations. Totten and Branoff (2005) suggested that when developing online courses for engineering graphics, graphics educators are specifically faced with challenges such as determining appropriate and effective methods to demonstrate software, developing instructional materials that are primarily comprised of graphic imagery, and ascertaining the most accurate and adequate processes for assessing student work; all of which must be resolved in order to develop a quality online modeling course. The most challenging issues are those that relate to the technological tools needed to address instructional problems while adhering to instructional design principles for online learning and theories of adult learning (Connolly & Maicher, 2003). This paper highlights the consensus results from a modified three-round web-based Delphi process utilizing a panel of engineering graphics educators and professionals. Identified are the instructional and interactive technologies that should be considered or included when developing and/or teaching introductory 3D modeling or comparable engineering design graphics in the online environment. The remaining components are a part of a final inventory of best practices for developing online introductory 3D modeling courses. Instructional Technologies for Online Learning Because technology is rapidly evolving, more tools for interaction and collaboration on the web have been made available. Anderson (2008) described the web as a quickly changing mechanism that at one time was defined from a context of text-based communications, content, and interactions. However, with advancements in technological tools, the web can now be viewed as a mechanism that supports all forms of media. In this dynamic, web-based learning environment, content can be electronically constructed and tailored to meet the needs of the learner. It also helps to assemble web-based learning communities and provides opportunity for learning to continuously revolve around the designated learning tasks (McCombs & Vakili, 2005). When published to the web, online learning can integrate various types of technologies for synchronous or asynchronous communications. Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) outlined seven principles for such implementation based on good practices for teaching and learning. The principles included encouraging contact between students and faculty, developing reciprocity and cooperation among students, using active learning techniques, giving prompt feedback, 2 2012 Galveston, Texas emphasizing time on task, communicating high