Edith Cowan University
Research Online
Theses : Honours
1990
Computer-aided Drafting/Design In Technical
Drawing In W.A. Secondary Schools
Edmund V. Beagley
Edith Cowan University
Recommended Citation
Beagley, E. V. (1990). Computer-aided Drafting/Design In Technical Drawing In W.A. Secondary Schools. Retrieved from
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/225
This Thesis is posted at Research Online.
http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses_hons/225
Theses
Edith Cowan University
Copyright Warning
You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose
of your own research or study.
The University does not authorize you to copy, communicate or
otherwise make available electronically to any other person any
copyright material contained on this site.
You are reminded of the following:
 Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons
who infringe their copyright.
 A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a
copyright infringement.
 A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to
offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher
penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for
offences and infringements involving the conversion of material
into digital or electronic form.
WESTERN
OF
This
AUSTRALIAN
ADVANCED
is
copy
Australian
the
COllege
EDUCATION
property
of
~
thesis
paper
the
respected.
is
or
quoted.
writ ten
source.~
of
in the wor·k.
paper
copied
thesis,
or
(
any
work
the author must
passage
cl~sely
Western
Education ..
Advanced.
I:f
or
the
of
However the literary r:i..ghts of
also
COLLEGE
from
paraphrased
prepared
the
by
this
in
a
user,
the passage must be acknowledged.
If
the user desires to publish a
written
work
closely
which
conta:Ln:lng
pa.raphr·ased.
passages
would
passages
from
in
this
total
constitute an infringing copy for the purposes
o:f
the
Copyright
Act,
he
or
she
must
first
obtain the written perrnassion.of the author to
do so.
··,
fi
v:
'
r
',_
THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
COMPUTER-AIDED DRAFTING/DESIGN IN TECHNICAL
DRAWING IN W.A. SECONDARY SCHOOLS
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF EDUCATION WITH HONOURS
BY
EDMUND VICTOR BEAGLEY
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
FEBRUARY 1990
(ii)
ABSTRACT
This study
W<lS
conducted with the intention
of
identifying what effects may have occurred within
upper school
Technical Drawing
the recent
in W.A.
high schools fcllowlng
introduction of
Computer-Aided
Drafting/Design
(CAD).
With
CAD
being in its infancy in W.A.
high schools
it was decided that this study should attempt to answer four
specific questions:i)
Were there
any problems experiqnced by Technical
Drawing teachers following the introduction of
CAD?
ii)
Are there any educational benefits to either
students or teachers to be derived
from
the
introduction of CAD?
iii)
What
methods of teaching
and evaluating CAD
generated drawings were being used by teachers in
this subject
area?
(iii)
iv)
Has there
been any general effect on
interest in Technical
student
Drawing since the
introduction of CAD?
Despite the recommendations by the Secondary
Education Authority
(SEA) that CAD is appropriate to upper
school Technical Drawing there are
curriculum
no specific guidelines or
materials commonly available to assist the efficient
and effective
implementation of this technology.
Teachers that have initiated the introduction of CAD
into upper school Technical
Drawing
have done so with the
support of the Manual Arts Teachers Association
(M.A.T.A.)
in
conjunction with limited in-service training opportunities offered
through the
Western
Australian College of Advanced
(W.A.C.A.E.)
at Nedlands.
Available literature on an
is relatively
widespread, but with
within the classroom,
Australia,
is
industrial
Education
and general basis
respect to the
use of CAD
research particularly dealing with
extremely limited.
This study was designed to obtain basic research
information
of an
exploratory
nature with the
identifying some of the interests, benefits and
intention of
(lv)
problems affecting students and teachers involved
in upper school
Technical
CAD
Drawing.
Eleven schools within the Perth
were identified a<> conducting
Year 12 Technical
in
metropolitan area
CAD within
Drawing classes.
Year 11
From these
and
a sample
of four schools was subsequently randomly selected for
the purpose
All
of this study.
students and their respective
TechniGa! Drawing
teachers within the four sample schools were
study subjects and were surveyed using
term
of the
appropriately
a twenty day period duiing the third
1989 educational year (W.A.).
On
receipt of all questionnaires the data were
subsequently
manually tabulated using a tally sheet with
frequencies being
percentages.
as
All questionnaires were duly
constructed questionnaires.
completed within
accepted
recorded both as raw scores and as
To ensure
accuracy of the tallying
pmcedure
the data were also entered into the computer program
'LERTAP' direct from
statistical
program
the completed questionnaires. Th's
enabled the data to be checked using
the data validity function,
cross
plus the tabber function permitted
matching of data to determine the
significance.
presence of
(v)
Both the
contained
specific
student
and teacher questionnaires
items seeking open
were duly categorised and tallied.
responses which
Similarly each student
questionnaire included a gender identification item
that differences/similarities between
the
sexes
in order
may
be
study support
the
been
hoc'
examined.
The
main findings
general assumption
approach
to the
Technical
Drawing
by this
study
mainly to
of this
that there has
introduction of CAD
courses
which
the
in W.A.
teachers
The
upper school
problems
identified
had experienced
'hands
on' time
related
The
study suggests that
by students from
using
to
at their
own pace,
felt
were
they
the
for students, and the
concern for necessary security of
teachers
into
'ad
the limited availability of suitable computers,
lack of sufficient
work
an
equipment.
the major benefits derived
CAD is that they are
more
able
plus two of the four study
better able
to
meet individual
student needs.
Similarities with
teaching
CAD were
respect to the methods
found
within
of
the four study schools,
{vi)
whilst the evaluation
methods used consisted
range of techniques which reflected traditional
evaluation which,
using this
form
It was
it is suggested, are
drafting
inappropriate when
of technology.
also found
by significant numbers of
students that Technical Drawing was regarded
more challenging and
of CAD.
of a wide
more
as being
enjoyable since the
introduction
OEClARATI 0~
I certify that this thesis does not incorporate .. without
acknowledgement, any material previously submitted for a degree or
diploma in any institution of higher education; and that to the best of
my knowledge and belief, it does not contain any material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is
made in the text.
•,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to
her constant
studies,
sincerely thank m)' wife,
support
Glenys,
and encouragement throughout my
without whom the task would have
enjoyable.
for
been less
CONTENTS
f'age No
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
7
CAD TRIALLING IN W.A. SCHOOLS
11
PROBLEM STATEMENT
12
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE RF.VIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
15
SUMMARY
23
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
AND
PROCEDURES
STUDY POPULATION
26
GENERAL PROCEDURE
27
STUDENTQUESTIONNAIRE
27
TEACHEROUESTIONNAIRE
29
COLLECTIOI~
31
PROCEDURE
COM?~ETED QUESTIONNAIRES
33
DATA TREATMENT
34
CHAPTER
FOUR
FINDINGS
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS
40
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
43
METHODSANDEVALUATION
47
STUDENT INTEREST
50
CHAPTER
FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS
53
EDUCATIONALBENEFITS
61
METHODS AND EVALUATION
68
STUDENT INTEREST
73
CHAPTER
SIX
RECOMMENDATIONS
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY TEACHERS
76
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
77
METHODS AND EVALUATION
79
STUDENT INTEREST
81
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
83
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
89
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
96
LETIER TO PRINCIPALS
104
7
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Schools
increasingly
employing
Computer
technology
available
to
within
providing
develop
Western
Australia
computers
for
has
become
students
with
computer
literacy
are
teaching.
more
the
readily
opportunity
across
a
range
of
subjects.
The
7)
specifically
systems
requires
to
computer
all
Beazley
develop
usage
teachers
students
technological
(where
of
be
within
made
the
learning
addressedthrough
and
The
school
policies
report
are
within
of
states
responsible
that
for
all
this
learning.
students,
aware
(Recommendation
implement
practical)
education
facet
1984,
schools
schools.
Schools,
to
all
and
in
receiving
Report
that
teachers
the
environment
and
of
change
readily
be
speed
can
the
time/labour
direct
reference
to
it
possible
that
parents
saving
use
need
of
computers.
With
(Drafting/Design)
is
Technical
in
five
Drawing
years'
8
time
many
stylus
and
or
students
mouse
T-squares
In
industry,
in
pushing
instead
of
the
produce
order
to
Arts
Ministry
of
from
the
Manual
Arts
(M.A.T.A.),
have
of
the
changing
needs
related
that
commonly
are
of
to
enjoyed
Technical
Secondary
for
with
the
justification
that
that
would
widen
students'
be
environment.
as
to
how
to
the
time
11
found
There
CAD
and
in
is,
available
is
the
(CAD)
into
is
set
out
in
Syllabus
Technical
an
experience
Drawing,
activity
in
drafting
post-secondary
however,
to
in
(SEA)
12
CAD
the
should
support
curriculum.
Authority
documents
to
use
implementation
Education
given
Association
Drafting/Design
CAD
years
with
computer
Drawing
direction
and
Teachers
introduced
Specific
through
Education,
Computer-Aided
school
likely
work.
teachers,
the
the
pencils
workplace.
from
the
digitised
experience
processes
Manual
form
a
traditional
their
meet
require
and
the
be
to
students
equipment
will
be
no
clear
employed
students
for
indication
with
respect
'hands-on'
9
experience.
Similarly,
with
respect
best
suited
to
CAD
oi
reasonable
is
community
to
A
to
the
within
offered
four
years.
schools
is
Many
of
where
schools
has
equipment
not
to
that
no
Nd
initiated.
be
this
factor
to
school,
aspect
which
been
lack
of
institutions
to
of
will
and
suitably
within
students
for
trained
their
initial
postings
do
teach
CAD.
to
to
why
the
achieved.
a
not
teaching
qualified
W.A.
have
approximaiely
early
probably
contributes
CAD
the
reasons
approach
yet
the
units
areas
coordinated
Drawing
and
there
introduction
training
CAD
the
schools,
school
hoc'
received
of
introduction
suggest
'ad
have
some
TechnicP.i
pertinent
would
required
of
this
from
Teacher
only
indications
community.
existing
teachers.
areas
the
for
highly
W.A.
clear
into
to
considerably
vary
no
to
CAD
requirements
specific
are
technology.
regard
With
It
specific
to
implementation
there
CAD
in
have
These
concerted
implementation
teachers
country
the
factors
are
and
of
CAD
10
In
in
CAD
would
and
view
teaching
be
of
within
alike
was
methods
when
they
(i.e.
arise)
The
benefits
laboratory,
of
students
and
not
of
been
to
formally
assist
it
teachers
the
or
a
efficient
programmes
through
specific
and
of
and
CAD
in
and
of
of
setting
teaching,
the
the
evaluated.
as
goals.
drawbacks
methods
and
'n&twork'
a
well
trial
problems
up
similar
teachers,
teaGhing
both
guidelines
CAD
building
with
computer
of
expertise
schools,
to
jsuccessful'
and
a
aspects
set
solving
teachers
likeminded
secondary
have
been
have
of
programmes.
who
Teachers
error
a
such
lack
benefit
available
of
way,
present
W.A.
if
made
implementation
under
the
considerable
students
model
of
attitudes
effects
upper
Perhaps
not
up
on
school
have
even
recorded.
The
Australian
fragmented
Technical
introduction
Common
guidelines
approach
by
at
present
Drawing
CAD,
of
is,
to
teachers
do
not
approach,
adopted
teachers,
educationally
assist
involved
exist.
a
of
West
the
undesirable.
more
in
by
CAD
uniform
introduction
11
Now
investigate
some
implementation
CAD
seems
of
of
an
the
CAD
TBIALLING
IN
problems
within
W.A.
Computer-Aided
introduced
into
basis
trialling
of
respect
to
W.A.
its
appropriate
time
associated
Technical
with
the
Drawing.
SCHOOLS
Drafting/Design
schools· during
specific
to
hardware
(CAD)
1987,
and
appropriateness
to
schools
chosen
was
on
the
software
the
Manual
with
Arts
Curriculum.
Four
of
equipment,
Warwick
four
to
trial
a
range
i.e.:
Rossmoyne
The
were
S.H.S.
Olivetti
S.H.S.
Mic~obee
South
Fremantle
S.H.S.
B.B.C.
Swan
View
I.B.M.
Compatible
schools
S.H.S.
also
trialled
the
following
software:
Bee artistic
Prodesign
II
Autocad
Since
schools
have
early
1987
independently
a
number
assessed
of
other
alternative
equipment
12
and
its
result
application
of
this
'ad
implementation
of
an
approach
to
the
Recommendation
7
of
The
the
1984.
STATEMENT
new
relatively
into
secondary
though
to
basis.
be
Following
(CAD)
individual
appears
hoc'
Report,
PROBLEM
an
action
uncoordinated
Beazley
on
the
technology,
Technical
schools
not
recent
Computer-1'.1ded
Drawing
of
in
benefits
and
such
that
courses
problems
courses
it
WA,
substantiated,
involved
introduction
been
teachers
to
this
upper
suggested,
and
expriencing
specific
the
Drafting/Design
within
has
are
of
students
both
area
of
teaching.
If
true,
schools
introducing
Drawing
courses
any
order
that
might
be
need
to
purpose
existing
schools
be
into
replicate
the
aware
potential
CAD
to
Thus,
identify
the
exists
upper
a
this
benefits
and/or
introducing
CAD
of
relevant
addressed.
school
similar
of
for
factors
Technical
situation.
study
problems
in
future
is
to
in
the
future
that
may
13
STATEMENT
Technical
introduction
Drawing
2:
of
fourstudy
into
in
problems
experienced
following
the
four
are
to
school
upper
the
There
CAD
no
teachers
CAD
courses
benefits
are
Drawing
of
Hypothesis
schools.
study
no
Technical
perceived
students
and
educational
teachers
in
the
schools.
Hypothesis
3:
evaluation
used
respect
HYPOTHESIS
There
~
Hypothesis
by
OF
to
The
methods
by
CAD
of
Technical
is
the
teaching
Drawing
same
in
and
teachers
with
all
the
study
of
CAD
into
the
effect
on
schools.
Hypothesis
four
4:
study
interest
The
schools
in
high
the
schools,
recent
and
may
the
of
more
effective
no
student
Drawing.
introduction
investigated
needs
has
Technical
The
illustrated
introduction
of
this
development
identified
result
students,
in
of
areas
a
CAD
of
better
teachers
implementation
document
of
and
this
has
within
concern
W.A.
which
understanding
schools,
new
if
of
and
technology.
a
14
The
recent
in
for
literature
Australia
this
and
study
following
relating
chapter
to
CAD
internationally
may
be
intends
to
and
CAM
in
determined.
order
that
review
published
direction
15
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The
within
the
industrial
Motors
Aided
early
field
1960's
of
drafting
companies,
in
the
technological
such
U.S.A.
Drafting
and
tool
and
Boeing
accepted
the
forced
its
industry
significantly
internationally
accepted
methods
on
the
drafting
all
the
previous
change
is
introduction
worldwide
instruments
geometry)
coupled
1988),
and
design
self-evident
CAD
was
still
that
by
the
the
used
Pythagoras.
The
improvement
steady
to
has
Computerlatest
the
the
produce
had
industry
far
combined
(Fuller,
the
that
employing
were
the
of
into
used
fact
and
draftin~
and
with
as
major
General
changing
which
changes
of
and
way
manufacturing
(Bertoline,
when
use
(CAD)
changes
manufacturing.
has
drawings
significant
design
as
Design
in
CAD
heralded
the
by
of
recent
reduction
in
effect
greater
than
1988).
prior
design
same
Euclid
an
to
CAD
the
industry
tools
(the
This
and
father
of
technology,
necessary
16
capital
investment
software,
CAD
have
for
been
increasingly
throughout
boom
two
of
becoming
hardware
the
and
main
more
reasons
common
for
place
industry.
Despite
Australia,
essential
if
the
current
proportions
general
trends
during
economic
persist
the
downturn
CAD
1990's
will
in
reach
(Building
Today,
1990).
The
increased
efficiency
productivity
1985).
and
CAD
consistency,
much
than
drawings
increased
drawings
is
Automatic
dimensioning,
from
extensive
functions,
achieved
quick
range
the
of
greater
(Cheng,
of
higher
legibility
production
2-10
is
and
of
times
CAD
faster
1988).
speed
incorporated
to
drawings
The
from
system
directly
profitability
(Bertoline,
features
overlay
be
CAD
neatness,
1987).
can
any
produce
accuracy,
operating
an
higher
can
drafting
of
translates
turn
(Murphy,
The
generated
in
greater
manual
benefit
which
systems
faster,
generated
major
in
producing
from
within
easy
styles,
elimination
of
a
range
the
of
system.
lettering
the
CAD
selected
provision
repetitive
work,
of
17
storage
and
recall
and
drawings),
'instant'
in
(Goetsch,
all
Hall,
Industry's
had
a
direct
Architecture,
1982;
effect
Electrical
on
bringing
about
required
and
involved.
Computer-Aided
evolutionary
used
to
changes
the
extension
help
production
systems
that
through
tasks
and
solve
1987)
in
that
excess
within
the
operations
of
allowing
problems.
by
of
1.2
U.S.A.
It
turn
the
million
If
may
this
has
of
from
time
been
the
jobs
an
extensively
manage
more
in
productive
repetitive
be
creative
estimated
(Becker,
century
created
projection
1987).
factories
boring
to
being
complex
University,
become
more
workers
occupations
automate
people
them
of
now
State
to
(e.g.
(CAM),
and
has
Engineering)
the
is
Illinois
efficiency
technology
numbers
of
CAD,
helping
freeing
the
and
(the
CAD
Manufacture
operate
is
their
nature
of
plan,
CAM
order
very
significant
occupations,
the
make
1984).
Mechanical
in
to
operator
of
related
and
the
Giesecke,
acceptance
part
facility
to
and
speed
and
the
contribute
production
1981;
(full
importantly,
most
corrections
increase
Information
of
there
for
proves
will
be
CAD/CAM
correct,
then
18
given
for
the
same
CAD/CAM
population)
with
is
a
more
related
is
an
circumstances,
likely
increase
of
probability
CAD
operators
the
the
areas
State
of
field
of
this
in
which
drafting
potential
benefit
put
CAD
there
is
and
design
the
Similarly,
needs
1989),
for
a
leader
especially
within
West
Australian
The
is
1989).
as
the
largest
In
the
suggestion
industry,
of
has
to
society
into
perspective
by
Fuller
in
a
CAD
significant
general
("1988,
of
acceptance
industrialised
significance
user
light
that
ever-increasing
The
p.1)
states
A
to
to
!hera
increase
recognised
strong
gathering
to
1988).
(SECWA)
a
demand
manufacturing
geology.
(Lingane,
is
Australia.
in
(Lingane,
and
in
corresponding
is
to
in
(Bertoline,
Australia
the
been
a
Commission
evidence
technology,
of
growth
(proportionate
automation
mining
Energy
CAD
by
of
occur
Australia
Western
in
occupations
to
high
the
computer-aided drafting system is
drafting what a word-processor is
words and writing.
society.
has
who
19
Industry's
in
the
of
CAD
systems
education
system
can
not
computer
iiterate
up
use
requirements
to
two
years
computer-aided
schools
the
ensure
their
not
graduates
CAD
derive
background.
benefit
responsibility
falls
meeting
needs
its
The
and
education
it
been
left
to
order
facilitated.
7,
all
a
(SEA)
in
to
with
the
to
specific
back
them
into
and
to
of
secondary
technology,
of
but
will
industry
students
1987).
aid
(1984,
identifies
to
As
direction
school
subject
the
provide
a
Therefore,
industry
in
p.60)
responsibility
of
computer
policy
for
Secondary
upper
set
1987).
systems
the
be
minds
Williams,
Report
clearly
general
the
schools
the
establishment
industry
19C:5;
students.
produce
that
take
If
with
will
within
in
current
(Becker,
school
provides
has
to
design
trained
clear.
industry
The
of
Beazley
Recommendation
schools
1982).
Both
(Becker,
quite
industry
confirm
relevance
that
then
and
only
is
employees
provide
(Hall,
drafting
will
students
people
for
recommendation
teachers,
Education
curriculum
programming
but
it
Authority
documentation
may
be
20
One
school
of
Technical
of
a
be
in
the
Technical
Syllabus
E859
this
stated
requirement
secondary
students
drafting
should
activities
likely
environment
(SEA
[Year
11]
p.294).
have
A
D859
specific
is
computer-aided
SEA
documents
to
p.324
example
drafting
of
and
(CAD).
The
the
schools
above
education
recognise
administration
industry's
prospective
employees
technology
(Hall,
and
design
Virtually
done
with
should
but
it
not
draw,
that
the
concepts
the
the
Hoggard,
objects
within
be
every
be
of
of
CAD
meanings
1985)
this
of
have
context
in
now
drafting
the
the
order
is
needs
being
(Goetsch,
1981 ),
computer
aware
drafting
and
CAD
that
Therefore,
be
10
of
schools?"
type
does.
needs
respect
computer-aided
in
that
illustrate
secondary
with
should
stressed
operator
in
question
taught
assistance
operator
and
The
clearly
W.A.
familiar
"How
is
at
needs
being
1982).
addressed
be
drafting
and
that
of
Drawing
12]
to
upper
post-secondary
[Year
that
of
is
range
and
design
aims
Drawing
experience
found
the
this
of
suggests
the
techniques
ability
to
does
to
obtain
(Pedras
visualise
a
21
basic
mastery
traditional
of
drafting
will
CAD,
but
1987;
Sorensen,
should
CAD
existing
classes
be
of
drafting
is
in
which
Students
understanding
CAD
followed
tend
to
if
not
of
practised
seen
as
error.
Instruction
providing
a
expression
the
by
forget
a
need
(Becker,
needs
measure
be
use
(Pedras
and
Hoggard,
a
oriented
of
be
be
1986).
a
traditional
than
they
of
time
should
not
be
trial
and
by
whilst
student
CAD
drafting
Technical
of
period
learned
Although
rather
general
because
a
for
aid.
principles
structured,
freedom
1985)
subject,
(Sweet,
to
that
valuable
and
CAD
and
(Noderer,
experience,
1987).
the
1988),
given
over
the
separate
fi"
a
that
within
reminded
conc~pts
to
of
(Chowenhill,
development
be
1987).
game
a
Drushler,
instruction
de-emphasise
skill
to
'hands-on'
video
become
become
basic
the
suggests
changing
has
by
(Fesolowich,
incorporated
to
and
CAD
replaced
pre-requisite
1986;
need
dynamic
be
and
than
(Sweet,
Consequently,
research
to
rather
students
a
not
The
related
study
simultaneously
will
1988).
be
Drawing.
necessary
a
curriculum,
course
1985)
Technical
selfdoes
instruments
Drawing
pretty
remains
picture
I
22
Methods
of
to
ratio
relationship
Becker
the
(1987
(if
not
limited
facilities,
lecture
of
Student
aides
Some
case,
it
creativity
1987;
are
instructors
the
(Goetsch,
instruction
with
1981 ).
update
It
(Sweet,
may
be
being
the
be
placed
1986;
of
challenge
Drawing
using
a
on
Fesolowich,
1888).
acceptance
their
to
of
techniques,
w;1cn
This
emphasis
serious
Technical
aspects
construction
drawings.
Sorensen,
increasing
to
traditional
automatically
solving
1988;
and
more
greater
problem
a
hand-out
tutorial
iettering,
(e.g.
represents
need
the
a
Bertoline,
drafting
CAD
students
produce
permits
and
four
are
supplement
self
performed
to
The
to
of
Drawing
system
in
vary
computers.
to
there
of
with
step
by
Rotation
CAD
would
i.e:
Step
dimensioning)
that
methods
ideal)
Class
Technical
students
of
suggests
p.24)
viable
instruction
CAD
computer-aided
to
teachers
educational
suggested
drafting
with
respect
skills
that
traditional
23
methods
of
longer
be
relevant
CAD
programmed
it
is
the
literature
problem
(1989)
re-definition.
produces
drawings
plotted
difficult
to
offers
stated
that
he
be
for
the
as
to
mark
records
line
observation
CAD
work,
how
overcome.
doesn't
only
need
student
no
to
makes
suggestion
might
but
the
(1986)
assess
no
teachers
work,
eliminating
Sweet
for
students
may
demand
uniformity,
that
evaluation
and
assessment.
quality
and
assessment
but
this
Wilkinson
any
of
completion
the
of
set
exercises.
Following
Technical
a
Drawing
significant
enthusiasm
Belliston
(1985)
the
classes
increase
(Kimney,
and
enthusiasm
contribute
environment
to
to
the
there
within
is
1986;
a
flow
which,
positive
and
Drawing
if
into
have
observed
and
Becker,
Chowenhill,
inslructor,
Technical
CAD
motivation
Sweet,
1987;
more
of
teachers
student
1985;
that
a
some
in
Marsing,
suggesls
introduction
1987;
1987).
on
Noderer
of
correct
beneficial
in
should
learning
general.
SUMMARY
The
illustrated
employees;
literature
reviewed
clearly
the
need
of
plus
the
responsibility
in
this
industry
of
the
for
document
CAD
education
has
trained
24
system
(within
opportunity
for
exposure
to
drafting
Western
Australia)
to
students
to
the
the
and
latest
view
traditional
has
(Cheng,
Fesolowich,
1987;
need
students
as
a
states
CAD
be
taught
the
of
within
schools
CAD,
of
Hoggard,
CAD
experience.
is
scarce,
from
required
the
that
limited
there
can
by
but
be
Gow
learned
start.
because
resources
would
and
of
understood
drafting
1985;
fundamental
standards
view
of
the
Technical
tend
of
the
available
to
be
to
teaching
strategies
Drawing
teachers
(Zuleger,
on
1985;
1987).
The
the
in
widely
and
suggests
generally,
the
to
used
and
adaptions
produced
is
literature
necessary
Goetsch,
used
the
that
and
to
this
basics
system
nature
part
to
to
and
1988)
pre-requisite
The
drawn
conventions
Opposition
if
appropriate
currently
Pedras
Sorensen,
to
a
been
1985;
concepts,
drafting
(1987)
technology
the
design.
Attention
held
gain
provide
question
drawings
sighted
is
literature.
of
only
It
assessment
e~perficialiy
was
found
of
student
addressetl
that
CAD
by
difficulties
25
exist
in
using
appropriate
practical
procedures.
No
assessment
were
this
study
intends
by
Technical
used
found
to
methods
and
suggestions
the
in
examine
Drawing
in
assessment
respect
literature
current
teachers
of
therefore,
and,
methodologies
in
Western
Australia.
In
diverse
issues
this
nature
and
discussed,
investigation
chapter,
was
concerns
literature
of
wide
a
sighted
and
reviewed.
A
have
been
identified
and
and
they
form
of
this
study.
the
basis
The
with
the
necessary
methods
used
in
conducting
this
and
study.
of
following
the
range
of
topics
of
chapter
procedures
and
to
deals
be
26
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD AND PROCEDURES
STUDY
POPULATION
For
of
students
the
State
the
and
and
Year
which
was
which
within
currently
(CAD)
Drawing
Eleven
schools
fulfilled
random
sample
of
proportionately
that
large
four
the
were
the
selected
from
Perth
(1989)
within
samples
conducting
their
Year
11
courses.
the
four
schools
enough
study,
teachers
are
Technical
considered
external
this
schools
drafting/design
12
a
high
area,
computer-aided
of
corresponding
senior
Metropolitan
purpose
sample
given
criteria,
from
was
selected.
It
(4)
would
to
produce
establish
a
population
validity.
Students
Data
questionnaire
7
females.
in
Year
11
were
collected
responses)
These
and
(in
the
form
for
44
students,
included
all
students
Year
12
Technical
37
of
males
actively
Drawing
and
participating
courses
27
currently
(1989)
Drafting/Design
employing
the
use
of
Computer-Aided
collected
(in
the
(CAD).
Teachers
Data
responses)
questionnaire
All
four
were
teachers
more
were
of
than
the
from
four
corresponding
form
teachers,
all
Technical
the
above
students.
All
of
four
years'
Technical
Drawing
of
male.
Drawing
whom
had
teaching
experience.
GENERAL
PROCEDURE
The
questionnaire
collected
responses.
designed
for
(Appendix
1
STUDENT
and
Hypothesis
14
and
6,
8,
1
and
the
form
questionnaires
teachers
Appendix
studenl
items,
sought
17
and
in
of
we<e
respectively
2).
QUESTIONNAIRE
nineteen
and
were
Specific
students
The
item
data
plus
2
relate
15
12
a
individual
1,
16,
questionnaire
to
and
were
4
of
not
19
identification
the
study.
1;
items
Hypothesis
relate
related
comprised
item.
from . students
Hypothesis
relate
18
opinions
and
to
gender
was
to
to
2;
9,
items
7,
specific
to
11
10,
13,
3,
5,
2,
Hypothesis
any
Each
relating
Items
4,
of
4.
Items
28
Hypothesis,
but
information
on
respondents
order
The
questionnaire
was
intention
minimise
to
relationship
sought
instead
of
within
items
arranged
between
general
the
on
the
pc:~stble
any
items,
study.
random
at
real
background
student
with
the
interference
or
in
imagined
by
select
an
the
the
students.
Students
were
appropriate
response
r.hoice
by
placing
There
were,
Item
13
10
required
to
each
to
item,
and
a
[/]
in
however,
two
exceptions
required
requested
a
a
short
written
the
written
indicate
relevant
to
box.
this
format.
statement,
qualification
to
a
their
and
Item
YES/NO
response.
This
recording
this
quick
student
study
in
available
(during
students
to
and
length
of
A4
paper)
was
the
[/]
the
completion
was
responses
consideration
a
the
the
of
of
the
limited
account
response,
as
a
for
Consideration
four
when
it
for
time
class)
questionnaire.
(i.e.
of
appropriate
Drawing
into
such
method
most
questionnaire
taken
format
of
Technical
complete
the
simplistic
was
questionnaire
sides
of
of
adopting
viewed
might
that
appear
29
as
an
undesirable
alternative
less
method
committed
student
student
plus,
part
format
be
into
entry
be
students.
of
effective
data
by
aid
tallies
quickly
2.6
a
regarded
manual
'LERTAP'
could
some
and
conducted
direct
evoke
was
[v-]
Initial
An
might
of
appropriate
could
Program)
to
of
and
from
the
(Statistical
facilitated
with
a
minimum
complication.
QUESTIONNAIRE
The
items,
identilication
of
the
responses.
the
students.
format
[v]
on
questionnaire
TEACHER
four
some
the
an
responses
Computer
of
as
student
accurately,
to
response
researcher
processing
to
effort
The
the
task
teacher
without
item
respondents
relating
to
the
need
because
of
within
Items
four
Items
3,
relate
to
and
24
relate
15
relate
to
the
sought
all
23
questionnaire
the
four
a
study
individual
the
4,
7,
8,
5,
6,
1.
'
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
3•
'
number
Items
2•
'
and
(4)
schools.
opinions
of
twenty
gender
limited
hypotheses
Hypothesis
to
for
comprised
from
teachers
study.
9,
10,
14
and
16,
17,
18,
20
Items
11'
12
and
Items
13,
19
and
30
21
relate
were
to
not
instead
Hypothesis
related
sought
respondents
to
general
within
appropriate
response
choice
placing
were,
however,
required
teachers
Technical
Drawing
methods.
If
then
for
provision
to
how
they
they
used
between
in
complete
this
the
to
an
If
teachers
11
how
they
taught
CAD
in
of
four
identified
were
not
on
work
to
a
listed
and
they
indicate
from
on
state
questionnaire
method
teachers
made
applicable
the
what
methods
to
There
Item
CAD
was
box.
format.
required
the
their
this
explain
student
indicate
relevant
available
and
15
and
to
listed
made
select
list
were
of
not
the
explain
what
used.
There
format
but
on
the
list
methods
provision
for
in
a
methods.
then
questionnaire
method
from
state
23
information
item,
indicate
evaluated
applicable,
each
exceptions
item
identified
required
[vl
a
was
Similarly,
used.
six
the
teachers
to
to
and
study.
were
two
2
Hypothesis,
specific
background
the
Teachers
by
any
1,
Items
4.
were
the
study.
relevant
no
student
significant
and
Teachers
teacher
were
questionnaire
differences
questionnaires
required
during
in
the
to
same
31
Technical
school
Drawing
period
students.
Therefore,
completion
of
asked
complete
to
the
complex
responses
content,
the
been
impaired
each
item.
processing
teacher
teacher
Computer
minimum
Program)
COLLECTION
granted
requiring
more
prior
of
the
lack
notification
responses
could
the
may
have
due
consideration
format
[v'l
was
and
Initial
be
into
of
of
appropriate
direct
entry
be
effective
out
of
'LERTAP'
regarded
manual
carried
facilitated
by
aid
tallies
quickly
data
2.6
of
of
and
from
the
(Statistical
with
a
complication.
PROCEDURE
Permission
was
questionnaire
could
questionnaire
for
were
responses.
the
limited
teachers
an
teacher
of
was
study
If
without
as
plus
corresponding
time
response
responses
accurately,
a
through
researcher
the
questionnaire.
reliability
The
the
as
to
by
the
the
sample
Principals
of
Technical
Drawing
conduct
Ministry
teachers
the
of
schools,
involved
proposed
suiVey
Education,
the
and
the
re!evant
in
this
study.
to
32
All
period
year
data
the
during
were
third
collected
term
of
within
the
a
20
day
education
1989
(W.A.).
Students
Suitable
involved
the
absent
the
of
the
suiVey
tendency
being
for
the
present
of
as
during
completed
should
instances,
and
where
efficient
one
school
to
return
researcher
of
students
to
being
occasion.
each
bias
arranged
Only
because
researcher
in
for
questionnaire.
first
The
were
available
questionnaire
the
on
times
required
study
administer
the
were
students
administration
within
contact
was
the
a
of
administrator
study
of
time
schools.
the
as
no
of
Any
researcher
questionnaires
regarded
therefore
sole
four
result
the
be
the
were
uniform
in
all
significance
to
this
study.
The
students,
Drawing
identified
at
the
on
researct1er
a
teacher
SUIVey.
he
basis,
involved
himself,
which
class
the
was
was
in
by
each
the
study.
Institution
studying,
introduced
to
Technical
The
(W.A.C.A.E.,
and
the
participating
researcher
Nedlands)
subjec1
matter
of
33
the
in
manner
that
same
containing
were
Students
19
questionnaires
that
and
were
were
told
particular
the
All
ten
remain
'right'
or
they
they
would
students
They
would
if
items,
in
completed.
no
that
researcher
guidance.
within
individually
there
with
questionnaire
questionnaire
all
Students
appropriate
a
was
that
responses.
hand
informed
be
and
their
there
were
to
informed
problems
classes
items
anonymous
any
all
'wrong'
experienced
should
provide
completed
raise
the
the
minutes.
Teachers
Participating
the
nature
of
the
survey
was
their
either
study
in
simultaneously
situation
COMPLETED
the
to
of
students,
the
of
conduct
completed
researcher,
or
in
sample
of
a
researcher.
QUESTIONNAIRES
On
questionnaires
given
with
aware
Teachers
presence
their
made
permission
sought.
the
with
were
when
originally
questionnaires
one-to-one
were
the
teachers
receipt
(44
a
of
student,
numerical
the
total
4
teacher)
item
responses
code
(item
specific)
which
34
would
simplify
this
method
and
13
an
open
to
examine
of
the
ordering
of
treatment
the
student
response.
the
the
of
tallies.
the
Exceptions
data
queslionnaire
was
It
data
from
established
of
therefore
and
record
content
were
to
Items
10
which
requested
more
appropriate
tallies
identified
in
within
categories
the
given
responses.
Questionnaires
each
item
double-checked
cross-checked
noted
and
anonymity
DATA
by
by
edited
the
assistant.
as
part
respondents
for
completeness,
researcher
Missing
of
the
prevented
and
responses
study
were
because
subsequent
contact.
TREATMENT
Data
A
student
10
was
made
which
these
sheet
required
record
tallies
to
the
was
item-by-item
to
non-response
of
tally
responses
item
foot
an
accepted
of
Student
for
were
to
tally
an
the
be
particular
sheet.
used
(with
open
gender
to
the
record
all
exception
response).
of
Provision
of
respondents
and
totalled.
Any
irregularities
(e.g.
items)
were
noted
at
the
35
Frequencies
responses,
individual
were
which
percentages.
Where
mean
were
calculated
made
on
the
frequency
of
contained
any
tabulated.
Data
were
second
entry
'LERTAP'
and
recorded.
tally
which
mode
record
either
no
to
and
Provision
to
of
converted
range,
sheet
gave
respect
were
the
computer
ensure
entered
turn
In
was
the
response,
program
that
for
all
both
'LERTAP'
was
were
correctly
data
student
and
teacher
directly
from
the
study
all
data
was
performed
of
data
validity
function
to
sets
ques1ionnaires.
ensure
using
The
significance
selected
were
'LERTAP'
data
across
items.
obtained
Individual
data
for
male
correct
data
was
the
similarly
fre0,uency
student
function
and
presence
used
of
with
print-outs
tabulation
teacher
for
data
sets.
Data
Gender
and
tabber
determining
Complete
Separate
both
for
2.6
tally
female
sheets
student
were
constructed
responses,
A
the
recording.
cross-matching
or
ambiguity.
The
to
in
applicable
student
items
employed
compiled
following
for
36
the
identical
This
format
technique
gender
to
of
was
to
for
all
students.
provide
for
possible
within
the
study
present
examined.
Open
Response
Data
Responses
for
examined
were
used
adop1ed
similarities/differences
be
five
would
employment.
random
The
order,
identified
compiled
for
Item
was
students
of
benefit
to
procedure
the
was
same
students,
CAD
future
in
a
categories
for
tally
male
there
felt
repeated
accepted
category
that
their
five
13)
randomly
found
where
subsequentiy
all
were
10
it
and
10
areas
Separate
for
Items
and
be
with
and
study.
(i.e.
contenl,
general
experience
this
that
the
sheets
different
being
purpose
of
were
students
and
female
students.
Item
or
No
required
13
response.
Affirmative
comments
which
subsequently
Responses
were
subject
areas
where
CAD
would
being
established.
different
randomly
be
random
students
to
responses
required
a
be
categorised.
examined
for
identifiable
skiiis
developed
students
felt
resulting
The
procedure
was
with
same
the
in
a
list
of
repeated
six
Yes
qualifying
would
useful,
order
select
using
six
in
a
categories
37
being
confirmed
and
accepted
study.
Separate
tally
sheets
students,
male
students
In
across
reliability
the
order
student
tallying
between
Use',
procedures.
second
under
twice,
a
categories,
Specified
area'.
on
first
the
category,
reduced
score
the
difference
'Drafting
The
and
having
no
significance
tallying
for
Item
contained
an
Item
subject
might
areas
be
establishing
was
'Designing',
10
between
to
13
the
skills
therefore
categories
Only
in
was
students
out
the
Computer
tallied
equally
frequency
therefore
scores
as
the
questionnaire
reliability.
to
experienced
state
specific
through
CAD
the
complexity
of
and
their
respective
frequenciuo
two
categories
their
on
'Non-
regarded
student
of
of
lapse
and
study,
degree
asked
where
differed
the
of
acceptable
helpful,
minimised.
difference
of
10
frequencies
being
Design'
tallies
day
two
and
second
Item
'General
of
degree
carried
seven
The
tallying,
within
researcher
a
all
for
acceptable
frequencies,
with
this
students.
an
the
of
purpose
complied
female
ensure
questionnaire,
recorded
the
to
the
were
and
category
procedure
for
frequency
'Drawing'
totals
and
(one
score
38
r;:lly),
subsequently
considered
as
the
degree
for
acceptable
the
was
reliability
of
purpose
of
the
study.
In
addition,
an
out
the
same
10
and
13.
There
was
between
the
results
of
the
of
the
data
consideration
use
assistant
was
~ccepted.
tally
sheet
Items
for
difference
of
found
those
and
confirmation
carried
the
of
reliability
Data
A
teacher
the
procedure
significant
no
Tha<afore,
data
Teacher
distribution
frequency
researcher.
independently
assistant
of
in
the
of
the
additional
was
form
size
ordinal
of
of
used
to
record
response
sample
all
frequencies.
(4
teachers)
representation
was
15
respondents
In
the
deemed
unnecessary.
Items
the
was
opportunity
individually
11
to
include
used
provided
additional
information
with
which
examined.
Chapter
procedures
and
three
in
this
dealt
study.
with
It
the
methods
identified
the
and
study
39
population,
at
the
survey,
treatment
general
together
this
methods
with
procedure
the
data
and
collection
instrument
and
data
methods.
Chapter
ot
survey
tour
study
d!lrived
and
procedures
reports
from
the
detailed
the
data
and
implementation
in
this
findings
of
section.
the
40
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
PROBLEMS
Hypothesis
experienced
by
introduction
of
Drawing
in
discussion
about
feel
of
they
of
the
looked
lessons · now
that
CAD
greater
it
included
students
of
concern
two
reasonable
being
of
that
50
percent
more
care
\han
usual
with
only
two
the
with
of
their
at
of
questioned
Technical
the
CAD.
did
Drawing
used.
equipment
teachers
teachers
CAD
students
equipment
teachers
but
stayed
Drawing
all
care
found
However,
to
although
was
lessons.
teachers
Technical
computers,
took
introduction
more
use
Drawing,
to
was
to
they
had
the
the
schools.
Drawing
four
forward
Security
of
prior
following
Technical
stated
Technical
Technical
that
three
to
problems
teachers
study
surveyed
addition
level
four
no
school
upper
the
teachers
computers
However,
into
in
are
Drawing
Technical
courses
TEACHERS
There
1:
CAD
All
same
BY
EXPERIENCED
now
agreed
equipment.
felt
during
permitted
they
was
that
that
It
took
CAD
students
41
to
operate
CAD
equipment
in
an
unsupervised
that
in
situation.
The
there
was
Only
two
limited
of
the
computer,
and
in
the
of
use
had
introduction
of
computer
teachers
had
access
no
than
remained
three
stated
whilst
teachers
said
that
students
had
improved.
their
students
improvement
in
their
while
the
remainder
there
had
been
relationship
male
and
question
with
of
their
CAD.
of
no
about
the
teacher
no
students
of
a
than
felt
with
any
their
sample
their
four
their
less
significant
result
have
the
with
introduction
in
single
attendance
the
questioned
improvement
as
class
improvement
the
was
female
three
the
a
to
following
relationship
following
There
that
Conversely,
of
equipment.
teachers
relationship
percent
30
instances
workstations.
same
the
CAD,
did
instance
teachers
of
all
availability
more
All
levels
showed
survey
stated
in
teacher,
that
their
of
CAD.
difference
response
between
to
the
in
their
relationship
of
the
introduction
42
For
of
off-task
the
majority
of
and
class
behaviour
following
remained
unchanged
However.
one
teacher
behaviour
and
class
decreased.
It
that
students
than
when
was
noted
produced
they
introduction
that
both
by
had
less
of
traditional
CAD.
fact
the
work. when
employed
of
off-task
in
three
level
had
disruptions
the
disruptions
noted
the
teachers.
teachers
using
CAD
drawing
instruments.
All
students
over
teachers
had
77
'hands-on'
more
percent
declared
'hands-on'
they
would
Similarly
experience.
of
students
also
time
was
desirable.
The
study
prefer
indicated
more
Conclusion
problems
experienced
following
the
Drawing
courses
Therefore.
study
by
introduction
into
Hypothesis
Most
limited
1
As
of
identified
range
Drawing
of
into
CAD
four
is
study
of
teachers
Technical
schools.
rejected.
identified
computer
a
a
Technical
the
problems
availability
schools.
has
direct
related
equipment
consequence
to
the
within
of
the
this
43
situation,
for
students
'hands-on'
restricted
experience,
contributing
factor
less
than
work
were
for
which
in
students
students
their
in
opportunities
itself
may
using
CAD
used
traditional
who
be
producing
equipment
Security
a
concern
schools
their
did
to
had
of
incorporated
their
CAD
cater
Technical
Drawing
for
a
such
major
into
their
an
availability
of
appropriately
EDUCATIONAL
teachers
the
significant
through
benefit
2:
of
four
Teachers
acquired
which
within
teachers
were
computer
teaching
this
the
equipment
environment.
BENEFITS
benefits
in
suitable
within
need.
courses
secure
Hypolhesis
educational
classrooms
Drawing
CAD
also
study
equipment
identified
Technical
was
four
problems
by
insufficient
the
security
experienced
incorporating
and
equipment
Each
The
study,
computer
teachers.
traditional
not
of
There
CAD
are
to
study
perceived
no
students
and
schools.
unanimously
the
use
to
students
of
agreed
CAD
in
that
would
other
skills
be
subject
a
a
44
areas.
all
It
was
students
Yates'
cell
found
numbers
:l..
more
than
with
this
view.
disagreed
Correction
l'l
) ( (1,
that
for
discontinuity
in
respect
=
44)
result
illustrated
views
of
significant
and
teachers
over
72
percent
skills
developed
of
all
using
assistance
when
seeking
education.
Over
80
the
skills
to
general
such
design
a
computer
gender
from
the
as
This
students.
However,
did
and/or
further
this
group
CAD
related
a
thought
mainly
drafting/
responses
significant
as
that
of
specialised
no
the
believe
bo
Student
population
df=1.
between
and
produced
student
.02),
difference
of
architecture.
basis
E.(
using
use
small
population
employment
from
the
teacher
would
percent
acquired
Using
of
of
students
CAD
percent
because
the
6.545,
=
a
the
of
61
on
differences
whole
in
this
respect.
All
of
GAD
into
Year
8
would
Two
of
the
benefit
indicated
Technical
to
a
that
teachers
agreed
Secondary
be
of
teachers
CAD
Drawing.
School
some
felt
reasonable
degree.
be
largest
the
introduction
Technical
benefit
that
should
The
that
to
at
students.
students
would
Similarly,
introduced
number
Drawing
of
all
students
into
respondents
45
favouring
Year
10
(38.6
of
the
j.lercent)
and
Year
8
(31.8
percent).
Two
made
CAD
student
that
they
Less
at
than
teachers
of
students
pace.
In
this
percent
extra
surveyed
between
students
had
observing
another
students
Drawing
during
Visits
potential
used
to
no
facet
feeling
had
felt
questions
worked
two
of
with
time
teachers
they
pace.
they
respect,
the
indicated
own
said
'honds-on'
stated
the
the
within
their
courses.
Correspondingly,
is
students
students
of
use
individual
their
at
provided
'earn'
was
of
Technical
they
teachers
Confidence
work
the
meet
of
percent
Half
remaining
percent
to
that
to
16
Drawing
cooperation
81.8
them
able
to
Technical
for
felt
were
stated
opportunity
CAD
and
teacher's
the
CAD.
easier
it
needs
teachers
improved,
change
in
examined
with
that
with
the
this
respect.
22.7
that
their
confidence
increased
with
the
36.4
percent
increased
CAD
thought
of
use
all
confidence
in
of
students
when
asking
lessons.
to
industry
by
s!udents
to
see
was
viewed
by
teachers
as
having
provide
a
small
educational
benefit.
how
a
46
Conversely,
over
to
visits
80
industry
percent
would
of
students
be
valuable
identified
a
students
and
thought
that
and/or
interesting.
Conclusion
The
benefits
study
perceived
gained
from
instances
by
CAD
and
student
diametrically
experience,
opposed.
wide
variety
teachers
although
teacher
in
to
be
some
perceptions
Therefore,
of
were
Hypothesis
2
is
rejected.
It
teachers
meet
use
was
interesting
surveyed
the
of
felt
individual
students
note
were
they
needs
whilst
CAD,
to
of
better
students
they
were
able
If
this
situation
to
half
able
the
to
through
over
concurrently
felt
that
the
percent
81
work
at
for
all
their
of
own
pace.
then
the
use
of
being
supportive
meet
the
may,
therefore,
taught
as
Technical
of
needs
a
CAD
the
of
be
all
or
true
should
be
concept
subject
Computer
schools
acknowledged
for
students.
appropriate
separate
Drawing
is
schools
to
Consequently
for
CAD
as
distinct
Studies.
to
as
be
from
it
47
METHODS
AND
EVALUATION
Hypothesis
and
in
evaluation
respect
of
The
_.3.;
used
by
CAD
is
methods
Technical
of
teaching
Drawing
the
same
in
within
the
study
teachers
all
the
study
schools.
All
method
a
when
running
CAD
whereby
students
were
rostered
to
CAD
equipment
for
limited
period,
used
rotation
student
of
programs,
the
teachers
for
or
either
completion
the
of
a
a
set
use
set
time
task
or
exercise.
One
the
student
teacher,
his
combination
of
class
lecture
a
addition
method
rotation
supplemented
in
teaching
of
with
self-tutorials,
supported
the
use
of
instruction,
technique
step-by-step
to
by
a
together
appropriate
with
hand-out
materials.
The
literature
identified
alternative
method
aides
as
an
none
of
the
a
strategy.
identified
mentioned
teachers
Similarly,
or
in
used
the
within
the
student
of
teaching
instruction,
study
used
teachers
surveyed
had
instructional
methods
other
literature.
but
such
not
than
48
With
the
study
exactly
respect
showed
did
surveyed
that
same
the
to
evaluating
no
system.
use
a
two
student
teachers
However,
combination
all
of
work
used
teachers
two
or
more
methods.
Three
hardcopy,
on
teachers
two
specific
teachers
Two
students
incorporating
one
teachers
teacher
set
part
used
the
formal
a
the
of
time
their
direct
CAD
spent
evaluation
observation
system,
or
test
finished
students
incorporated
as
exercises
process.
evaluated
and
of
only
exercise
to
be
evaluated.
Conclusion
The
of
availability
within
study
the
computer
study
to
students
as
a
Methods
of
teaching
schools
school
indicate
specific,
exchange
of
between
these
CAD
that
ideas
that
equipment
adopt
practical
and
With
student
suggests
a
of
within
they
are
of
both
instruction.
four
study
teacher
there
information
teachers
rotating
CAD
the
that
limited
led
system
CAD
and
has
method
suggest
the
is
and
no
taking
place
evaluation
of
teachers.
reference
work
the
to
study
the
found
that
there
was
49
no
uniform
the
study
method
teachers
reflected
which
presently
in
used
variety
a
traditional
use,
drafting
but
of
instead
methods
assessment
techniques.
The
four
methods
schools
study
teaching
showed
evaluation
processes
range
techniques.
of
of
were
CAD
similarities,
made
but
up
Consequently,
within
of
the
the
a
diverse
Hypothesis
3
is
rejected.
However,
the
desirable
whereby
more
i.e.
tend
within
method
lecture
work
to
become
W.A.
high
Technical
Drawing
producing
drawings
dimensioning),
any
but
relevant
the
be
would
of
that
CAD
more
per
be
by
this
to
computer
for
be
situation
and
to
student)
a
used,
individual
teaching
uniform
of
provided
instruction
Should
drawn
availability
supplemented
sheets.
suggested
should
workstation
effective
Some
offer
one
opportunity
class
is
in
the
tutorial
it
increase
(ideally
equipment
attention
self-
eventuate,
methods
would
standardised
schools.
traditional
are
no
using
the
methods
longer
CAD
teachers
alternatives.
of
valid
(e.g.
line
surveyed
This
evaluating
when
quality
did
situation
not
may
and
50
reflect
the
level
within
the
given
that
of
the
of
development
four
study
schools
time
and
involved
shou,
wolve.
methods
Hypoli >is
study
four
in
interest
with
27.3
CAD.
of
The
use
of
part
evaluation
in
Technical
found
percent
challenging.
the
students
since
the
in
student
the
found
forward
in
their
95
more
more
of
about
52.3
Technical
of
percent
of
increa&ed.
CAD
into
percent
of
enjoyable.
lessons
that
level
had
of
to
almost
to
they
Drawing,
sense
Drawing
than
said
introduction
resulted
subject
study
their
parents
introduction
considered
looked
on
Technical
that
that
more
the
The
in
Technical
Drawing
CAD
surveyed
and/or
CAD
stating
Since
of
the
of
effect
students
indicating
increased
professionalism
59.1
appropriate
no
than
friends
students
students
on
introduction
has
the
other
with
had
all
suggested
Drawing.
half
percent
discussion
The
4:
Technical
computers
Drawing
is
experience
more
schools
Over
used
it
CAD
IN-, t1ESI
STUDENT
the
teaching
and
greater
teachers
of
all
Also,
be
30
Technical
more
percent
51
Drawing
lessons
whilst
since
68.2 . percent
change
in
their
the
stated
outlook.
introduction
of
there
been
indicated
that
their
Technical
Drawing
had
increased
of
there
been
had
CAD,
Ail
that
· •ring
are
CAD
in
within
freely
oi
77.3
change
teachers
students
level
whilst
no
15.9
Similarly,
students
introduction
had
CAD,
no
percent
study
of
following
the
percent
said
their
the
encouraged
tnat
study
study
of
pattern.
confirmed
to
ask
questions
all
students
' .;sons.
C011Ciusjoo
T11e
found
Technical
Drawing
CAD
more
study
population
of
CAD
enjoyable,
more
where
CAD
was
stating
their
level
increased
suggests
on
CAD
that
student
and,
which
more
to
used,
of
there
interest
therefore,
in
the
than
been
a
4
Drawing
CAD.
significant
is
they
lessons
of
Drawing
use
percent
Technical
Technical
Hypothesis
said
16
introduction
of
the
the
Drawing
almost
use
half
percent
Technical
of
the
regarded
Thirty
study
has
involved
they
with
fcllowing
almost
more
that
challenging.
forward
that
whilst
stated
looked
had
found
study
effect
involving
rejected.
This
52
Possible
student
may
of
Technical
attributed
to
the
such
a
general
increase
in
out
and
the
under
This
chapter
findings
of
the
evaluation;
to
providing
and
student
the
relevant
a
information
concise
at
The
findings
in
proposes
such
the
next
suggested
of
the
in
conjunction
usage
in
problems
other
Each
hypothesis
with
of
each
and
stated
the
relates
order,
salient
sub-section.
discusses
the
them
section
in
set
experienced
methods
interests.
of
has
categorising
benefits;
conclusions
discussions.
CAD
enthusiasm
document
study,
chapter
conjunction
and
computer
conclusion
end
involving
~rograms,
headings,
educational
in
home.
the
appropriate
teachers;
directly
the
increase
attitude
running
areas
the
Drawing
teacher
subject
from
for
the
with
by
in
interest
be
reasons
the
sighted
which
study
literature,
may
be
and
drawn
53
CHAPTERS
CONCLUSIONS
PROBLEMS
teachers
around
as
EXPERIENCED
The
scope
covered
by
the
area
opposed
The
software.
was
there
students
created
to
a
This
far
the
main
teachers
a
the
CAD
ideal
of
would
for
more
are
not
of
practised.
they
time
that
in
for
turn
workstations.
tend
to
desires
suggest
of
both
'hands-on'
stresses
'hands-on'
tend
if
the
within
the
for
need
experience
to
Therefore,
workstations
and/or
work.
(1987)
period
cases
to
students
a
classes,
hardware
which
significant
over
centred
computers
students
situation
CAD
CAD
all
the
otherwise
to
in
by
mainly
specific
for
students,
students
of
sufficient
and
of
programs,
ratio
Becker
frequent
of
availability
for
opportunities
use
experienced
were
organisation
limited
reason
and
study
showed
high
TEACHERS
problems
findings
use
from
of
this
of
to
BY
forget
skills
the
the
instruction
and
restricted
schools
for
operations
access
would
of
54
suggest
CAD
that
may
potential
be
of
was
to
at
the
Equipment
cupboards
and
among
with
Technical
equipment
is
of
proportion
providing
end
lessons,
was
the
correct
usually
the
equipment
return
overnight
locked
From
of
and
away
at
in
the
study
findings,
introduction
of
CAD
concern
teachers
for
the
Drawing
the
to
high
traditional
suitable
upper
school
Technical
If
computer
teachers
in
level
of
a
drafting
security
it
of
assume
for
investment
to,
its
involved
or
loss
limited
CAD
(in
in
of,
availability
components
of
inoperable.
stations
were
work
equipment
of
many
Drawing
that
probably
instruments)
Damage
render
secure
is
capital
consideration
would
within
concern
computers.
schools,
to
in
increase
within
same
of
CAD,
Drawing
the
equipment
reasonable
of
ensuring
such
anchored
using
increasing.
This
because
Technical
stockrooms.
that
students
introduction
of
by
weekends.
appears
the
security
addressed
instruments
to
limited.
Prior
question
benefits
the
permanently
area,
it
concern
safety
could
would
shown
be
b~
by
aiiE•viated.
55
However,
the
such
situation,
a
study
cases
but
did
not
instead
provided
with
mobility
enabling
wheeled
into
lockable
stockrooms
use.
This
teachers
situation
responsible
employed
security
the
i.e.
more
and
funding
of
the
them
be
to
when
not
that
the
in
equipment
have
utilisation
and
environment
developing
becoming
all
took
only
to
were
and
subject
available
the
area,
as
time
permits.
students
equipment,
of
the
computers
Despite
students
levels
given
nature
CAD
afford
computers
suggest
for
best
possible
temporary
their
might
generally
teachers
stating
reasonable
half
operate
the
the
care
teachers
CAD
they
with
thought
CAD
surveyed
programs
permitted
without
supervision.
In
equipment
Technical
is
all
also
provided
Drawing
understandably
regard
there
this
is
case
no
rooms,
situations,
student
access
access
equipment
acceptable
that
potential
situation
as
direct
evidence
to
and
teachers
to
to
entire
materials.
It
might
undesirable,
support
CAD
thiS
although
view.
56
where
Conversely,
to
students
operate
CAD
supervision
an
experience
was
created.
The
issue
computer
the
equipment
degree
individual
within
(if
of
field
the
any)
cf
be
weighted
towards
behaviour.
relationship
between
paramount
almost
of
30
the
four
improvement
that
a
exists.
teachers
use
CAD
to
In
this
of
in
findings
that
there
for
situation
in
provide
the
which
greater
turn
may
opportunity
unsupervised.
than
of
would
be
showed
that
with
had
three
been
could
mutual
an
suggest
trust
encourage
for
to
depth
together
relationship,
basis
the
student
studemo
felt
their
equipment
The
risk
likely
rather
respect
and
little
Therefore,
more
attitude,
taught
which
poses
seem
teacher
teachers
potential
This
students.
importance.
percent
arts,
injury
student
in
subjects
CAD
would
around
invest
machinery,
trust
classroom
other
of
of
centre
teachers
most
'hands-on'
use
to
manual/industrial
physical
question
of
appear
direct
for
unsupervised
particular
of
the
without
opportunities
Unlike
use
to
in
would
of
permitted
equipment
of
trust
students.
the
employ
increase
teachers
more
students
to
57
The
CAD
question
remains
teachers.
a
In
of
unsupervised
personal
view
of
equipment
in
all
employing
unsupervised
decision
the
limited
schools,
the
CAD
disadvantages
of
damage
to
highly
Teachers
should
establish
a
may
be
equipment
direct
at
any
one
who
a
needs
provide
to
give
employing
as
by
time
work
specific
be
identified
one
need
of
within
and
The
wise
by
students
for
identifiable.
in
at
the
teachers
with
greater
individual
attention
to
instruments
that
step-by-step
and
study,
this
to
would
(1987),
Drawing
drafting
be
use
Technical
manual
or
equipment.
instruction
Becker
appropriately,
misuse
recommendation
structured.
teacher
the
readily
(1987)
by
outweigh
responsibility
be
CAD
by
unsupervised
form
Chowenhill's
to
to
of
gained
would
enabling
instruction
this
it
monitored
with
fulfil
that
computer
accordance
employed
important
using
of
utilisation,
wherEtby
require
self-tutorial
would
system
Students
probably
advantages
under
recognise
behalf
availability
use
potential
expensive
on
students
would
same
the
other
within
time
opportunity
students
the
58
traditional
school
classroom
Technical
as
that
opposed
an
value
appears
2-1 0
four
teachers
students
produced
less
usin(l
traditional
drafting
time
to
than
the
literacy
of
students
shown
in
all
that
hardware,
plus
not
two
the
the
Students
be
a
exposed
short
is
of
It
of
of
would
suggest
that
in
computer
'hands-on'
The
circumstances
been
CAD
availability
amount
computer
has
operating
CAD
in
explained
involved.
involved
face
CAD
students
of
CAD
available
states
study.
limited
desired
retention
on
the
development
restricted
aspects
to
of
schools
the
for
afforded
maximise
a
using
instruments
best
of
is
work
is
this
there
upper
drafting.
within
cases
programs
these
level
of
questione~
result
(1 988)
manual
difference
to
This
contradictory
Bertoline
relationship
opportunities
period.
be
faster
This
of
the
which
times
majority
of
equal
in
literature,
the
students).
to
within
(i.e.
Drawing
Three
observed
setting
in
combination
students
which
are
to
requirements.
CAD
to
a
large
amount
period
of
time,
which
of
are
required
information
supports
the
to
within
view
that
59
instruction
needs
enhance
printed
student
CAD
to
drawing
such
with
as
CAD
the
in
If
output
(e.g.
then
much
work
importance,
to
and
of
and
to
may
be
'written
For
students,
highly
capabilities
specifically
selected.
to
be
of
line-types.
automatically
teachers
to
organisational
which
available
order
related
scales,
be
individual
be
not
setting
all
program
to
structured
need:;
etc.,
option
require
of
procedures
co-ordinates,
this
is
program
procedures
the
be
learning.
drawings)
the
in'
to
of
it
would
conversant
chosen
CAD
programs.
the
Additionally,
less
work
when
assignments
technically
too
drawing
CAD
are
students
comprehension.
the
using
fact
is
may
for
requirements
to
to
their
another
students
produce
suggest
required
complicated
This
that
that
complete
level
of
the
are
CAD
reason
for
structuring
level
of
student
the
experience.
All
attendance
teachers
following
the
recorded
introduction
suggests
students
are
computer
use
Technical
of
avoidance
in
behaviour
no
not
as
sufficiently
Drawing
a
result
change
of
in
CAD,
which
threatened
to
of
adopt
such
class
by
forms
an
60
introduction.
Further,
percent
all
of
students
Drawing,
Technical
is
technology
beneficial
would
it
concluded
that
not
have
significant
a
although
particular
to
rule.
to
class
unchanged,
in
unaltered,
it
significant
negative
have
been
behaviour
this
cause
facet
for
it
may
of
should
CAD
the
behaviour
and
class
of
one
teacher
respect.
be
class
that
influence
of
on
CAD
Years
remaining
CAD
had
and
12
organisation
no
behaviour.
the
may
some
variables
student
without
concern.
note
within
t1
it
disruptions,
all
CAD)
exception
remained
did
With
of
said
therefore,
teacher
Therefore,
prove
accomplished
of
a
may
may
and,
in
individuals
introduction
classes
students
generally
traditional
appears
affecting
in
computer
attendance,
accommodation
drafting
effect
than
class
this
the
The
introduction
attendance,
(excluding
way.
other
that
by
50
over
on
although
improvement
received
the
Off-task
similar
indicate
non-threatening
be
that
computers
use
generally
and
this
consideration
in
to
student
be
assumed
should
not
be
that
61
BENEFITS
EDUCATIONAL
there
The
results
a
significant
was
teachers
and
acquired
through
areas.
the
the
areas
might
indicate
that,
in
drawing,
benefit
skills
to
However,
it
advocating
personal
aware
of
areas
when
equipment.
CAD
subject
the
be
adopt
is
the
possible.
and
for
CAD
would
is
funding
possible
attitude
opportunity
of
CAD.
be
viewpoint
of
was
do
sought.
teachers
have
generally
for
benefit
not
that
from
art,
studies
to
would
support
for
it
an
of
did
teachers'
areas
which
physics,
acknowledged
interest
Therefore,
the
CAD
subject
need
whenever
data
with
to
students
exposure
supporting
subject
specific
as
computer
competing
might
other
questioned
student
between
skills
seek
not
benefit,
introduction
the
to
general
should
vested
CAD,
of
and
other
the
transfer
did
that
opinion
maths,
from
in
of
opinion,
acquired
students
of
gain
Evidence
that
use
found
their
designing
would
the
teachers
subject
study
difference
survey
the
from
the
in
students
Although
examples
of
staff
a
be
in
computer
that
teachers
'selling'
their
arises,
other
and
biae
of
in
62
teachers
Conversely,
a
comprehensive
more
educational
technology
than
experience
majority
was
a
specifying
drafting
with
as
response
would
concentrated
CAD
suggest
would
be
within
W.A.
drafting,
with
little
respect
of
taught
being
the
A
interest
of
desire
shown
by
at
use
and/or
This
common
to
be
obvious
reason
for
present
CAD
as
tool
a
uses
this
is
to
information
background
such
future
students
more
schools
to
for
of
suggested
additional
use
within
A
such
CAD
their
interest
the
because
available
made
applications
student
high
to
relevant.
toward
business.
felt
computer
most
particularly
in
viewpoint
the
of
development.
proportion
general
being
of
benefit
are
scope
students
large
of
areas
of
positive
a
the
level
their
The
employment,
of
of
because
benefits
appreciating
fully
of
form
generally
who
hold
potential
of
this
students
do
from
precluded
by
should
CAD
perspective
offered
benefits
of
technology
in
in
industry,
students.
wider
industry
students
is
understanding
best
for
illustrated
visits
to
of
by
CAD
the
63
businesses
employing
interpreted
as
how
real
world
the
classroom.
the
taught
not
in
as
trips.
be
the
and
to
students
to
skills
students
are
the
benefits
less
to
students
not
In
addition,
teachers
organising
be
required
to
responsibilities
conducted,
which,
was
at
an
organising
visits
that
activities
'real
world'
be
such
serve
allow
applications
and
visits.
as
industry,
which
encouraged
students
to
the
wherever
teachers
Although
a
stimulus
visits
would
and
the
problems
it
could
possible.
survey
interest
involved
be
to
was
of
suggested
learning
IJe
should
to
derived
this
on
in
experience
Benefits
well
excursions
of
further.
issue.
school
may
may
opportunities
work
students
of
such
teachers
such
time
industrial
value
diminished
extra
the
Notwithstanding
by
by
being
see
were
educational
'hands-on'
to
be
towards
students
restricted
on
however,
students
approach
take
may
by
placed
the
response
Teachers,
as
conservative
related
available
uses
they
potential
This
Th:s
expression
enthusiastic
excursions,
on
an
CAD.
a
nature
from
may
superficial
64
level,
they
-
wider
also
have
understanding
contribute
teachers
favour
of
stated
school,
the
derive
is
use
of
student
benefit
the
view
Year
8
sufficiently
familiar
concepts
and
conventions
be
to
of
CAD
motivational
introduced
is
use
work
at
tool
to
suggested
for
of
Year
that
of
correclly
level
9
who
CAD
students
in
would
drafting
CAD
with
the
have
to
CAD.
displays
serve
would
Year
basic
using
and
may
Year
at
Drawing
when
demonstrations
may
reservation
Students
Technical
students
'hands-on'
This
traditional
not
them
in
in
are
apply
lower
convinced
prerequisite
of
in
less
CAD.
that
in
were
students
to
that
questioned
interest
Teachers
necessary
The
future
Technical
introduced
1988).
able
for
highlighted
in
Sorensen,
level
a
and
unanimously
1987;
8
provide
students
be
exposure
by
study
were
reflect
of
a
the
introduced
generally.
supported
(Fesolowich,
of
should
such
are
decisions
percent
may
degree
classes
student
being
CAD
from
applications
students
70
which
computer
of
and
that
to
CAD
results
Over
potential
education.
CAD
Drawing.
to
and
The
all
of
indirectly
employment
the
as
a
be
10,
a
when,
better
it
65
of
Technical
view
should
not
students
to
grasp
ThiG
introducing
might
feel
is
of
adequate
staff
The
with
feeling
held
by
over
employing
the
was
the
most
The
fact
thAt
had
them
whereby
students
or
in
pairs,
feelings.
using
problems
tutorials
way
CAD
to
are
for
not
of
students
alone
or
in
this
within
to
of
was
because
students
to
to
fully
back
solutions.
for
of
equipment
to
rotation
alone
the
low
faced
students'
incidence
with
previous
Working
revise/relearn
mastered.
study
system
intervention
refer
attitude.
student
CAD
a
1987)
fct!r
computer
sy~tem
the
th8
support
students
previously
for
pace,
pairs,
reason
a
to
students
percent
suggest
guidance
enables
provides
(B&cker,
operated
able
education,
self-tutorials
use
strategy
numbers,
own
access
could
the
factors.
in
at
they
their
teacher.o3
Teachers'
this
80
probable
requiring
level
other
work
conventions.
from
class
DrawiPg,
of
limited
any
any
working
use
aii
at
computers
to
Students
questioned.
schools
of
opportunity
teachers
availability,
Technical
and
acknowledging
and
use
in
the
CAD
appropriate
levels
concepts
preclude
computer
constraints
particularly
Drawing
in
aspects
this
of
66
Two
c!labled
needs,
of
them
an
are
utilisation
closely
needed,
as
to
of
be
of
teaching
their
proportion
pace.
teachers
to
students.
and/or
If
inserted
appropriate
course/
students.
strategy
to
discussed
experienced
invest
effort,
student
own
individual
previously
and
CAD
large
permits
most
problems
time
a
substituted
the
to
that
individual
at
of
individual
(as
to
work
self-tutorial
required
individual
a
realise
the
under
the
by
teachers),
considerable
which
is
an
issue
teachers.
The
Technical
to
where
progress
for
benefits
heading
aspect
this
are
between
for
provide
activities
teachers
the
provide
may
to
relating
for
better
the
drawl ngs
section
proportion
felt
the
For
potential
teachers
able
monitor
required
learning
the
important
students
The
of
final
of
students
Drawing.
concerns
educational
and
to
benefits
student
be
examined
were
confidence
under
cooperation
relating
to
67
The
had
students
can
not
CAD.
It
a
and
use
of
making
of
the
number
in
Technical
Drawing
CAD,
which
mistakes
using
CAD
to
erase
of
The
to
growth
Drawing
combination
needs
introduction
in
upper
school
may
of
group
of
be
maturation
or
as
students
felt
study;
pace
be
in
and
more
improved
suggest
may
drafting
students
with
the
be
'f9a(
Jess
instruments.
and
with
their
The
redraw
the
potential
expression.
be
student
particular,
the
readily
confidence
attributed
educational
of)
had
mistakes
in
may
of
drawing
traditional
freedom
greater
own
behaviour
increase
might
when
for
their
in
among
an
a
significant
the
this
the
process
within
provides
within
in
natural
assignments
(or
to
A
of
of
Technical
change
that
students
cooperation
adolescents.
when
ability
this
noted
development
confidence
the
but
that
attributed
be
among
result
individual
than
directly
should
social
suggest
improved,
be
cooperation
as
results
to
benefits
stodents
potential
for
addressed.
the
in
collective
identified
working
students'
at
66
METHODS
AND
EVALUATION
CAD
infancy,
Therefore,
on
used
are
this
aspect
data
two
for
'ad
introduction
on
of
the
as
hoc'
teaching
schools
has
not
system
best
suited
However,
the
class
greatest
its
in
evaluation
trial
a
study
basis.
examined
was
indicated
by
used
exactly
CAD,
of
produced
to
study
which
CAD
limited
the
a
did
the
same
suggests
into
W.A.
single
prevailing
that
the
high
clearly
preferred
circumstances.
indicate
lecture/handout
that
methods
the
did
self-tutorial
have
the
support.
An
,;;rectly
relates
schools,
plus
courses.
surveyed,
for
generally
teachers
method(s)
such
and
is
sought.
No
and
schools
methods
level
superticial
a
high
W.A.
teaching
the
procedures
within
a
appropriate
to
the
the
method
facilities
number
This
study
maximum
of
CAD,
which
would
self-tutorial
would
be
the
of
suggest
most
teaching
available
students
found,
three
of
within
involved
within
the
computers
that
CAD
the
appropriate
in
schools
available
use
of
method
of
69
teaching
under
these
in
However,
would
each
to
computer
student),
may
feel
that
own
pace
is
restricted.
The
results
a
choice
class
as
the
or
until
stations
is
the
evaluation
teachers.
(Sweet,
Sorensen,
(L3.
lettering,
drafting
CAD
as
has
and,
methods
A
plotted
continua
W.A.
high
work
a
range
significant
no
that
number
hardcopies
of
of
of
aspects
manual
when
many
longer
literature
1988;
of
automatically
suggests
are
the
number
work)
of
CAD
Be~cline,
a
line
W.A.
work
1987;
identified
wide
by
student
performed
therefore,
will
that
and/or
computer
used
dimensioning,
being
assessment
finished
currently
Fesolowich,
1988)
indicated
within
identified
assessing
1986;
their
at
increased.
results
When
format
of
students
self-tutorial
methods
availability
methods
some
study
:"'
(one
lecture/handout
work
the
teaching
significantly
The
class
to
of
preferred
situation
although
from
combination
teacher
schools
the
opportunity
lecture/handout
the
conditions.
'ideal'
the
appropriate,
more
be
restricted
using
traditional
appropriate.
teachers
student
work
examined
to
70
their
skill
levels,
suggest
that
this
evaluate
study
sufficiently
teachers
overall
ability
The
results
of
also
employed
The
completing
assignments
be
course
of
recording
(when
this
misleading.
To
assess
would,
assessment
framework
it
is
melh0d,
of
study
used
but
it
arsessment
a
would
for
to
desire
in
general
more
may
a
more
be
specified
appropriate
providb
students
a
reasonable
across
the
ability
continuum.
One
students
whilst
assessment
of
an
become
of
of
teacher
personal
direct
operating
CAD
individual
skill
itemised
a
u<'·';d
highly
bias
checklist,
affecting
levels.
casual
subjective
to
with
assessment.
of
aid
Without
observation
exercise
the
observation
programs
in
teachers)
!"chnique
be
most
students
related
completed
suggested,
by
some
generally
that
assessment
taker.
when
work
plus
showed
by
assessment
not
students.
time
students
time),
time
of
this
of
would
complementary
(as
'hands-on'
results
alone
of
this
a
significance,
work
the
method
the
technique.
may
but
the
use
may
the
potential
Direct
71
observation
(i.e.
may
stimulate
also
affect
individual
inhibition/exhibition),
i:'~haviour
student
'•hus
distorting
the
assessment.
Conversely,
encouragement
potential
on
to
students.
Teacher
regarded
as
test
the
teacher
of
observation
learning
has
concepts
difficulties
with
may
the
s.nd
individual
more
opportunity,
study
found
appropriately
rather
than
only
one
teacher
as
part
of
exercise/assignment
process.
teacher
to
This
method
determine
product,
but
of
processes
the
of
and
be
a
assessment.
assessment
the
cause
a
The
formal
observation
understanding
which
of
behalf
aid
processes
point
informal
fails
to
the
the
of
need
a
his
assessment
accuracy
address
involved
of
used
a
for
p8rmits
finished
assessment
with
computer
generated
sighted
(Goetsch,
1981;
drawings.
The
1932;
Giesecke,
literature
1984;
Cheng,
Bertoline,
1988)
CAD
t118
speed/efficiency
and
the
as
drawings,
identifies
two
potential
1985;
of
of
ease
the
Murphy,
1987;
major
benefits
producing
of
Hall,
new
editing/modifying
of
'
72
existing
made
drawings.
no
specific
CAD
of
features
Teachers
reference
in
suggests
little
to
import&nce.
their
drawing
no
of
two
using
two
students
computer
assessing
the
work
to
disks
would
be
facilities
of
alterations
produced
opposed
motor
examined
skill
CAD
providing
better
produce
the
same
sequences.
Therefore,
identical
for
amounts
method
work
the
of
on
individual
for
which
a
student
volume
of
to
editing
used.
Student
by
methods,
given
students'
be
these
been
appropriate
of
study
has
consume
An
efficiency
basis
will
command
should
memory.
comparative
memory
students
identical
of
assessment
consideration
this
in
either
to
their
relevant
No
questioned
programs
completed
to
be
would
made.
provide
assess
students'
to
assessment
skills
inappropriate.
which
In
levels
CAD
additon
relating
may
be
drawings
The
a
that
plotted
means
of
the
this
assessed
require
specified
hardcopy
the
of
traditional
obviously
to
better
for
comprehension
the
teacher
CAD,
sensori
renders
strategy,
then
the
as
to
73
previously
work
described
disk
student
memory
teachers
and
form
employing
a
significant
of
examining
consumption
assessment
This
as
system
make
of
a
it
of
test
their
aid
more
assessment
formal
part
should
individual
overall
relevant.
might
best
suit
exercise/assignment
CAD
course
assessment.
STUDENT
used
More
than
half
computers
other
than
which
into
INTEREST
may
indicate
Technical
notable
which
Drawing
increase
Drawing
of
between
supports
significant
Drawing
view
in
increase
the
study
introduction
of
questioned
said
CAD
Drawing
indicating
that
had
their
also
of
student
CAD.
about
There
was
friends/parents
that
there
has
interest
in
been
found
since
the
percent
of
30
now
looked
with
of
increased.
CAD.
for.ward
over
study
a
Technical
of
that
a
Technical
introduction
level
interest
their
student
lessons,
Drawing,
and
almost
they
Technical
over
involving
surveyed
Tec~nical
during
carry
students
following
students
discussion
the
The
Drawing
a
the
15
of
students
more
percent
Technical
to
74
Therefore,
of
introduction
has
had
upper
it
may
within
CAD
be
the
significant
school
Technical
Drawing.
may
argued
the
benefits
to
the
introduction
for
the
effect
four
a
It
be
students
of
that
student
schools
findings
in
on
derived
possible
interest
the
interest
the
teachers
suggest
that
study
student
on
and
CAD,
of
increase
suggeste.n
from
reasons
in
Technical
Drawing.
A
felt
more
using
able
CAD,
believed
meet
significant
plus
four
among
of
two
needs
The
the
students
in
confidence
reflect
an
it
percent
may
outcome
the
of
of
to
they
when
teachers
more
felt
readily
two
over
stated
22
subject.
that
these
in
percent
had
no
this
increase
of
cooperation
confidence
r;tudents
within
within
also
their
suggested
an
pace
study
that
teachers
said
said
students.
showed
level)
bn
own
four
improved;
questioned
students
their
individual
had
of
opportunity
schools,
(75
Therefore,
the
of
increased
their
at
of
findings
study
students
work
had
they
the
to
number
change
responses
student
75
interest
in
Technical
introduction
introduced
have
of
CAD.
Many
of
CAD
into
the
wider
attitude
role
of
interested
be
may
of
recent
drafting
that
this
displayed
(as
contribute
student
courses
enthusiastic
this
openly
positively
increase
and
of
have
Drawing
acknowledged
when
the
who
Technical
acceptance
teachers,
model),
recognised
their
should
It
technology
following
teachers
the
personally
been
towards
Drawing
interest
to
in
a
the
Technical
Drawing.
Chapter
of
the
and
suggested
study.
provide
study,
previous
The
the
and
five
chapter
in
conclusions
suggested
basis
are
followed
for
the
presenting
to,
the
conclusions
the
presented
established
discussion
findings
of
this
recommendations
in
the
format
following
of
on,
this
chapter
of
this
chapter.
76
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
PROBLEMS
EXPERIENCED
The
and
most
effective
is
suitable
computer
the
achieve
an
optimum
student,
whenever
drawing
involved
and
of
one
of
computer
such
general
of
seek
to
computer
to
each
in
equipment
respect
equipment
the
of
to
capital
lack
of
is
a
real
the
upper
school
investment
appropriate
secure
2
where
facilities
should
high
facilities.
That
system
simple
W.A.
availability
ratio
courses;
RECOMMENDATION
laboratory
of
should
teachers
the
operating/storage
lack
into
teachers
of
CAD
technical
CAD
restricting
practical.
Security
nature
factor
1
CAD
essential
TEACHERS
hardware.
That
to
of
significant
RECOMMENDATION
concern
common
introduction
schools
BY
be
possible,
provided
used
with
for
secure
a
CAD
computer
monitored
education.
access
77
Most
experience
mainly
self-teaching.
units
of
four
year
CAD
as
as
with
when
CAD
acquiring
to
for
qualification
to
to
employment
three
for
teachers
single
unit
or
on
a
their
own
skills,
pace
time
and
particularly
with
developing
institutions
ought
schools.
training
release
courses,
requiring
teach
CAD
the
in
on
a
current
necessary
W.A.
high
to
needs
experience/
schools.
BENEFITS
Students
general
of
CAD
3
teachers
EDUCATIONAL
of
a
additional
keep
teacher
in-service/day
spent
these
applicable
That
basis,
provision
and
introduce
component
study
to
have
RECOMMENDATION
offer
institutions
interest
basis.
endeavouring
technology
the
their
personal
of
integral
with
Teachers
in
result
an
gained
have
education
courses
inexperienced
money
a
Teacher
study
non-award
teachers
benefit
believed
that
to
potential
opportunities,
their
but
their
CAD
experience
future
perspective
was
education/
of
its
78
application
remained
students
in
need
industry,
exposure
in
understanding
somewhat
order
of
That
visits
to
applications
scope
of
a
provide
of
their
shown
Technical
the
a
necessary
variety
broader
educationai
of
with
CAD
a
wider
technology.
are
which
t t'
students
initially
means
leave
having
within
be
been
this
Drawing
that
school
after
exposed
knowledge
and
prerequisite
of
necessary
the
introduction
facilities,
of
CAD
have
at
studies,
concepts
the
study
introduced
reasonable
basic
of
gain
CAD
to
technology.
should
that
of
never
10
Students
of
of
and/or
students
Year
proportion
this
CAD
this
in
Year
that
of
to
CAD
a
students
Drawing
completing
might
videos
observe
Technical
significant
form
they
of
use
understanding
introduced
applications
possible,
4
to
would
Where
technology.
the
industry
the
that
this
RECOMMENDATION
to
narrow.
an
but
and
conventions
CAD.
students
prior
stated
earlier
it
has
to
Year
been
understanding
involved
Therefore,
would
stage
benefit
t t.
is
given
from
79
RECOMMENDATION
That
Drawing
receive
form
of
should
some
AND
CAD
current
W.A.
teaching
schools,
self-tutorial
teaching
rotation.
hardware
addressed
is
made
by
That
when
explanatory,
teaching
computer
made
Technical
10
aware
experience
methods
workstation
of
CAD,
with
this
teachers
method
the
self
CAD
workstation
a
of
in
if
class
In
related
view
of
computers
prefer
avai!3ble,
using
are · directly
ratios.
availability
However,
RECOMMENDATION
self
Year
EVALUATION
restricted
high
student
be
'hands-on'
studenVcomputer
the
practical,
technology.
METHODS
to
where
students
and
5
to
use
conjunction
access
to
tuition
may
in
a
with
appropriate
better
lecture/handout
be
approach.
6
utilisation
of
pa0ed
tutorial
to
c. :sses
ratios.
a
ol
well
is
structured
recommended
high
studenV
80
RECOMMENDATION
Thai
7
the
utilisation
a
sequenced
supplemented
by
recommended
when
an
equal
teaching
student/computer
use
Teachers
for
CAD
or
continuity
of
their
made
many
of
has
assessment,
assessment
criteria
and
appropriate
more
of
a
class
procedure
CAD
to
wide
but
is
the
redundant
and,
methods
with
of
little
across
tradilional
is
ratio.
range
there
methods
handout
classes
workstation
a
lecture
criteria
consistency
schools.
manual
drafting
therefore,
need · to
CAD
alternative
be
established.
RECOMMENDATION
That
used
a
memory
single
work
to
with
disks
student
the
examination
space
(number
assignment/drawing)
may
be
used
by
of
teachers
bytes
of
the
consumed
on
individual
as
an
efficiency/comprehension
by
student
appropriate
guide
levels
when
working
CAD.
RECOMMENDATION
may
8
better
9
That
individual
student
CAD
literacy
levels
be
assessed
when
students
are
required
81
to
edit
existing
construction
traditional
drawings
format
of
mawal
STUDENT.
assignment/exercise
interest
increased
CAD.
The
in
Technical
following
potential
Technical
exists
Drawing
informed
prior
to
deadlines.
Teachers
may
more
computer
significantly
availability
That
of
the
(and
should
industry
upper
W.A.
of
for
more
students
if
they
course
to
are
selection
readily
if
has
introduction
argue
student
promote
of
in
study
effects
high
has
Arts
positively
following
It
Drawing
for
demand
10
CAD
generally)
This
students
to
recent
Manual/Industrial
application
range
common
increases.
RECOMMENDATION
practical,
the
the
studies
adequately
greater
to
INTEREST
significantly
choose
addition
c'!afting.
Student
of
In
student
all
dealt
a
experienced
by
the
introduction
school
shown
recent
Technical
a
clear
Drawing
student
with
levels.
specific
teachers
Drawing
where
awareness
Technical
across
has
teachers,
and
of
CAD
into
courses . within
indication
that
the
82
suggested
hoc'
'ad
in
fact
present,
to
the
worth
left
and
of
unanswered
by
nor
its
no
to
this
appropriateness
identify
area,
subject
been
identified
within
the
the
class
or
high
situation.
study
The
worksheet
teaching
handout
CAD
was
sought
study
into
more
CAD
been
used
for
a
attempt
are
study.
being
evaluated
is
as
situation
in
software
questions
school
used
the
introduction
many
being
has
school
this
the
in
this
has
hardware
to
therefore
CAD
There
current
approach
found
was
adopted
with
these
effective
throughout
the · favoured
by
respect
areas
teachers,
lecture/
method
but
opinion
Further
subject
content.
may
provide
the
high
to
the
schools.
of
no
to
approach
W.A.
that
basis
introduction
for
of
63
REFERENCES
Beazley
Report,
Australia.
Report
Education
in
K.E.
Beazley),
(1984),
of
Education
the
in
Committee
Wec>tern
Australia.
W.A.
Government
Western
of
Inquiry
into
(Chairperson
Printer,
Western
Australia.
Becker,
K.
Curriculum",
18
&
Becker,
Industrial
Education
CAD
into
April
pp.16,
C.A.D.
with
the
K.
(1987),
Industrial
"Teaching
Education
Limited
March,
24-26.
Belliston,
the
"Incorporating
28.
Facilities",
pp.
(1985),
W.P.
Answer?",
Bertoline,
Delmar
G.R.
and
Marsing,
lndust;ial
(1988),
Publishers
Inc.,
L.
(1987),
Education
FundameiJlP,!s
New
York.
"Is
October,
of
pp.
C.A.D.,
CAD
24-25.
84
"Boom-Time
February
for
CADD",
1990,
Cheng,
W-L,
Technology
Design:
(1985),
Mobile
Forks,
September,
Project",
North
Manual.
of
C.A.D.,
Dakota
University,
Technology.
Assignment
School
gets
Shop,
(1988),
"Beyond
Drafting
Classes
Takes
New
Direction",
School
Shop,
pp.17-18.
"Exploring
Computer
Technology",
Plan
lodu.'>!rial
Education,
for
Normal.
Springfield,
Aided
p.21.
November,
Technical
High
Computer
Industrial
"Beginning
about
Dakota
P.
Drushler,
C.A.D.
North
Laboratory
(1987),
Excited
Students
"The
Department
D.
Chowenhill,
Today
p.31.
Instructional
Grand
Building
For
the
Illinois
Department
Education.
of
(1987),
Illinois
State
Adult,
Board
The
State
of
Vocational
Alone:
Illinois
University,
Education,
and
85
Fesolowich,
A.
of
and
C.A. D.
May,
"More
Traditional
thoughts
Drafting",
on
the
School
future
Shop,
p.32.
Fuller,
J.E.
Delmar
3rd.
F.E.
Edition,
Goetsch,
Gow,
A
Hall,
T.
Technology,
Texas
"Computer
booklet
Niceville,
Florida.
of
Graphics,
Co.,
Aided
for
the
dead?",
New
York.
Drafting
Okaloosa-Walton
field
School
of
Drafting:
Shop,
pp.30-31.
(1982),
A
Statewide
Paper
Advisory
Education,
Publishing
"State
Edition,
York.
workshop
content
2nd
.Engineering
(1981),
(1987),
traditional
November,
New
(1984),
College,
G.
Inc.,
MacMillan
D.L.
Workshop",
Junior
.llsing____.Auj,
(1988),
Publishers
Giesecke,
is
(1987),
Austin,
Conference
presented
Council
Texas.
for
on
on
behalf
High
of
Technology-Vocational
the
86
Kimmey,
(1985),
J.R.
p tQlQI.\'p e
A
Education
in
the
Community
presented
at
the
Annual
National
April
CAD/CAM
Colle.g.e,
Paper
Conference
Graphics
Computer
of
of
the
Association,
Dallas,
a
leader
in
20,
p.67.
Texas,
14-18.
Lingane,
D.
(1989),
arenas",
West
Murphy,
D.
drafting
achievement
(1987),
and
design
Australian,
and
equipment
of
Carousel
Noderer,
for
Las
S.
teaching
comparison
using
session,
Vegas,
statewide
Vocational
Vocational
aided
and
Proceedinos
Vocational
Nevada.
Instructional
Madison.
traditional
IbL Trade
American
CAD"
in
using
Committee.
"A
'
computing
beginning
computflr
equipment",
Research
of
students
(1985),
microcomputers
Univ.,
March
between
drafting
Education
Conference,
"A
students
Industrial
the
"Perth
demonstration
Strategies
Education.
Studies
lor
Wisconsin
Center.
site
using
87
M.J.
Pedras,
suggested
and
A
the
American
Vocational
Atlanta,
E.A.
(1988),
through
Drawing
12)
E859,
SwGet,
D.A.
Aided
Design
Shllp,
December,
Wilkinson,
Classroom",
D.
"Build
(Dacum
Student
annual
Education
6-8.
Interest
Projects",
in
School
pp.22-23.
Education
Syllabus.
the
December
'Engineering-Style'
December,
Secondary
Georgia,
"A
curriculum
at
Asr.ociation,
Shllp,
dratting
presented
of
Sorensen,
(1985),
Paper
Conference
Dratting
aided
computer
based)".
D.
Hoggard,
Authority,
(Year
11)
(1987),
Technical
- · D859,
and
(Year
Perth.
(1986),
to
"High
Drafting
School
Adds
Programme",
Computer
School
pp.23-24.
(1989),
Industrial
"Autosketch
Arts
in
Education,
the
June,
pp10-13.
88
S.
(1987),
"Bringing
students
up
current
drafting
practice",
School
Shop,
Williams,
with
September,
Zuleger,
Design
date
pp.23-24.
R.
(1985),
(CAD)
lnstructjonal
\!oQatiooal
to
into
Strategies
Educatioo,
"Integrating
the
for
drafting
using
Wisconsin
Computer
Assisted
curriculum",
Microcomputers
University,
in
Madison.
89
STUDENT
QUESTIONNAIRE
Bead
Please
Please
making
sure
questions
space
complete
that
only
each
require
provided
for
illll
Do
following
item
a
a
the
is
tick
make
tully
[/],
brief
questionnaire
answered.
but
others
Most
have
statement.
any
other
marks
on
the
questionnaire.
Male
Female
[
1
***************************************************
1.
How
many
Technical
2.
Do
you
Drawing
years
Drawing?
have
you
(Tick
been
studying
answer).
1
1
year
2
years
[
3
years
[
4
years
[
5
years
[
use
a
computer
other
1
than
lessons?
YES
[ 1
NO
[ 1
during
Technical
* APPENDICES *
90
3.
Is
Technical
computers
4.
Has
yr..~ur
Drawing
o·r
Drawing
are
more
enjoyable
used?
YES
[
SOMETIMES
[
NO
[
relationship
teacher
Computer-Aided
with
your
improved
since
the
you
since
look
the
introduction
Drafting/Design?
1
NO
Do
1
Te,chnical
YES
5.
when
[
1
forward
to
Technical
Drawing
introduction
of
Computer-Aided
lessons
Drafting/Design?
MORE
THE
LESS
,,'
SAME
]
91
6.
Since
the
introduction
Drafting/Design,
Drawing
time
study
of
Computer-Aided
spent
on
Technical
has
1
INCREASED
STAYED
THE
1
SAME
1
LESSENED
7.
How
much
care
Drafting/Design
USUAL
LESS
How
much
you
THAN
with
Computer-Aided
THI'N
would
OF
LESS
CARE [
USUAL
time
you
with
[
Computer-Aided
[
THE
1
prefer?
MORE
ABOUT
1
USUAL
AMOUNT
'hands-on'
Drafting/Design
take
equipment?
MORE
8.
do
SAME
1
1
1
'.'·,
'
-'
92
9.
In
your
opinion,
Computer-Aided
assistance
will
your
experience
Drafting/Design
when
seeking
be
with
of
employmenVfurther
education?
YES
[
NO
10.
In
what
way
Drafting/Design
11.
do
you
is/is
not
future
employment?
When
in
your
Drafting/Design
secondary
opinion
programs
feel
of
that
benefit
should
be
Computer-Aided
to
Computer-Aided
introduced
students?
YEAR
8
[
I
YEAR
9
[
J
YEAR
10
[
I
YEAR
11
YEAR
12
NOT
AT
I
ALL
your
[
I
[
l
to
93
12.
How
challenging/d13manding
Computer-Aided
to
Drafting/Design
pencil
traditional
do
and
you
in
paper
find
comparison
drawing?
1
MORE
ABOUT
THE
1
SAME
[
LESS
13.
Would
skills
the
Compute r-Aided
other
subject
using
developed
Drafting/Design
1
using
be
useful
in
areas?
YES
NO
If
YES,
how
subject
14.
By
your
[
1
would
those
help
skills
in
other
areas?
using
Computer-Aided
confidence
in
Drafting/Design,
Technical
Drawing
[ 1
IMPROVED?
STAYED
THE
REDUCED?
SAME?
[
1
1
has
94
15.
When
you
16.
Comput&r-Aided
using
feel
When
instead
you
work
AT
YOUR
AT
THE
TEACHER'S
AT
THE
CLASS
using
of
do
Drafting/Design,
OWN
PACE?
PACE?
Computer-Aided
instruments,
PACE?[
does
[
1
1
Drafting/Design,
your
sense
of
professionalism
INCREASE?
STAY
THE
SAME?
DIMINISH?
17.
When
you
asking
the
CAD
teacher
[
1
[
1
[
1
questions,
feel
CONFIDENT?
[
1
INHIBITED?
[
1
NEITHER?
[
do
95
18.
Discussion
friends,
of
about
Technical
parents,
etc.,
Computer-Aided
Drawing
since
the
Drafting/Design
INCREASED
STAYED
Visits
how
by
THE
Technical
industry
would
has
1
students
Drafting/Design
is
VALUABLE
1
INTERESTING
1
THANK
THIS
to
see
used
in
be
WASTE
COMPLETE
introduction
SAME
Drawing
Computer-Aided
your
1
DECREASED
19.
with
YOU
OF
FOR
TIME
TAKING
QUESTIONNAIRE.
,,,,
1
THE
TIME
TO
96
TEACHER
Please
QUESTIONNAIRE
Bead
Please
making
sure
questions
space
complete
that
only
each
require
provided
for
llJll
Do
item
a
a
the
following
is
tick
brief
make
tully
[/],
questionnaire
answered.
but
Most
others
have
statement.
any
other
marks
on
the
questionnaire.
** **** * **** j<·~ **** ** ** * ** •• ** ** * * ••• ., * ****** *******
1.
How
many
Technical
years
Do
you
Drawing
you
been
teaching
Drawing?
1
3
YEARS
J
4
5
YEARS
J
6
10
YEARS
YEARS
OR
10
2.
have
use
a
computer
J
MORE [
other
than
lessons?
YES
NO
J
[ J
in
Te,chnical
97
3.
Since
the
introduction
Drafting/Design
forward
to
of
(CAD),
how
teaching
Computer-Aided
much
Technical
do
1
[ 1
SAME
[
LESS
4.
Since
the
Drawing
5.
Time
with
your
CAD,
has
in
students
the
Technical
improved?
spent
introduction
of
introduction
relationship
look
Drawing?
MORE
THE
you
YES
[
1
NO
[
1
off
of
task
by
CAD,
in
students
your
following
opinion,
the
has
INCREASED
REMAINED
THE
SAME [
DECREASED
6.
Behavioural
the
disruptions
introduction
of
1
within
CAD,
the
in
class
your
DECREASED
THE
SAME
since
opinion,
[ 1
INCREASED
REMAINED
1
1
have
98
7.
Since
introduction
the
of
CAD,
have
class
attendances
IMPROVED?
STAYED
THE
SAME?
DECREASED?
8.
Do
students
take
reasonable
care
[
1
[
1
[
1
with
equipment?
9.
Are
YES
[ 1
NO
[ 1
students
permitted
programs/equipment
YES
NO
to
without
operate
CAD
supervision?
[ l
1
CAD
99
11.
Which
teaching
when
running
format
CAD
CLASS
do
you
programs
usually
in
employ
Technical
Drawing?
1
LECTURE/HANDOUT
SELF-TUTORIAL
OF
ROTATION
STUDENT
STUDENTS
AIDES
OTHER
If
12.
With
please
the
introduction
students,
of
in
CAD,
Do
time
students
period)
your
opinion,
students
using
has
1
THE
produce
when
1
cooperation
1
SAME?
1
DECREASED?
13.
[
state.
IMPROVED?
STAYED
1
[
OTHER,
between
[
more
using
work
CAD
(in
an
compared
instruments?
YES
[
1
NO
[
1
equal
to
100
14.
The
computers,
15.
How
in
security
of
respect
CAD
software)
hardware,
equipment
has
created
MORE CONCERN
[ l
THE SAME LEVEL OF CONCERN
[ l
LESS CONCERN
[ l
do
you
evaluate
student
(i.e.
work?
a) Finished plotted/printed hardcopy
[ l
b) Time spent on each exercise
[ l
c) Formal test exercise/assignment
[ l
d) Demonstration observation
[ l
e) Print out at set stages
[ l
f) Any combination of the above
[ l
g) Other (please state)
16.
Would
time
you
with
prefer
'hands-on'
students
had
experience
more
of
CAD
programs?
YES
[
l
NO
[
l
individual
101
17.
18.
In
your
opinion,
in
Year
8
In
would
benefit
the
introduction
[
I
A REASONABLE DEGREE
[
I
LITTLE
[
I
NOT AT ALL
[
I
IT WOULD BE DISTRACTING
[
I
your
opinion,
CAD
be
in
students
would
of
other
the
any
skills
subject
extra
time
I
given
using
the
CAD
opportunity
your
easier
opinion,
to
cater
YES
NO
to
'earn'
programs?
[
I
NO
In
to
[
YES
20.
benefit
areas?
NO
students
developed
significant
YES
Are
CAD
sludents?
GRI::ATLY
using
19.
of
does
for
the
individual
use
of
student
[
I
CAD
make
needs?
it
102
21.
Are
students
questions
23.
freely
during
CAD
encouraged
to
lessons?
YES
[
NO
[
Which
areas
CAD.
When
of
ask
Technical
Drawing
do
you
teaching
ORTHOGONAL?
[
OBLIQUE?
[ 1
ISOMETRIC?
[ 1
PERSPECTIVE?
[ 1
GEOMETRY (SOLID AND/OR PLANE)?[
1
1
use
103
24.
How
much
visits
to
would
benefit
see
how
COMPLETE
students
CAD
is
you
do
used
in
feel
industry
be?
A
GREAT
AMOUNT
[
1
A
SMALL
AMOUNT
[
1
A
NOMINAL
NOT
THANK
to
YOU
THIS
AT
FOR
1
AMOUNT
ALL
TAKING
QUESTIONNAIRE.
[
THE
1
TIME
TO
that
104
E.V.
Beagley,
W.A.C.A.E.,
Stirling
Highway,
NEDLANDS.
The
Principal,
Dear
Sir,
Request
I
conduct
a
Department
am
identify
of
a
writing
to
request
as
of
teachers
Drawing
conduct
study
part
purpose
interests
of,
and
within
the
course,
Computer·Aided
surve~
to
research
The
and
6009.
following
within
my
of
your
your
B.Ed.
study
benefits
to,
upper
your
Drafting/Design
Manual
(Hans.)
the
school
permission
is
both
Arts
studies.
to
determine/
students
Technical
introduction/implementation
(CAD).
to
105
The
Student
and
approximately
gathered
Teacher
ten
would
confidentiality,
of
this
be
which
minutes
be
and
introducing
might
Yours
E.V.
to
guaranteed
would
is
in
be
the
which
complete.
total
used
form
would
Tha
for
of
take
informaticn
anonymity
the
that
the
in
the
form
assist
CAD
together
relevant
seek
findings
hoped
future
into
would
the
is
questionnaires
reproduced
might
request,
survey
and
sole
purpose
study.
It
may
proposed
their
Technical
his/her
Technical
the
a
this
study
Resource
Drawing
Leaflet,
teachers
schools.
appreciate
with
of
of
your
name
Drawing
permission
confirmation
and
teacher
regarding
contact
in
of
number
order
this
my
of
that
subject.
faithfully,
BEAGLEY
RESEARCH
STUDENT
J.
HEGNEY
RESEARCH
SUPERVISOR