a comparison of two methods of teaching freehand drawing and visualization skills to engineering...
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note appears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format. *
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide format.*
*For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.
IM v ersilyMicrofilms
International
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
PREVIEW
8602829
R audebaugh, Robert Arthur
A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS
Arizona State University Ed.D. 1985
UniversityMicrofilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
PREVIEW
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or p ages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______
3. Photographs with dark background_____
4. Illustrations are poor copy_______
5. Pages with black marks, not original cop y______
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e_______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages.
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in sp ine_______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______
11. P age(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school orauthor.
12. P age(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled p ages_______
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received__________
16. Other____________________________________________________________________________
UniversityMicrofilms
International
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.
PREVIEW
A COMPARISON OP WO METHODS OP TEACHING
FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS
TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS
by
Robert Arthur Raudebaugh
A D isserta tion Presented in P a r tia l Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
December 1985
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
A COMPARISON OF TWO METHQDD OF TEACHING
FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKELIS
TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS
by
Robert Arthur Raudebaugh
has been approved
December 1985
APPROVED:
/ / ki//' j / M/ / / /} n j
V a j , * u - ^ , Co-Chairperson
; f e / f / ’ .'—
Supervisory Committee
ACCEPTED:
- - YDepartment Chairperson
D ean, Graduate College/
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
ABSTRACT
The purpose of th is study was to develop and te s t an
a lte rn a tiv e to the tra d itio n a l method of descrip tive
geometry as a way of teaching freehand drawing and
v isu a liza tio n to engineering students. Based p a r tia lly on
the research on brain function la te ra liz a tio n and p a r tia lly
on the proven record of a r t education in teaching drawing,
an experimental method was developed by adapting concepts
and techniques from each. The population for the experiment
consisted of a l l students enrolled in ECE 105L (Languages of
Engineering-Graphics) a t Arizona S tate University during the
P all semester, 1984. The course was divided in to 18
sections 11 of which were designated control, and seven of
which were designated experimental. Students in the control
sections were taught by the tra d itio n a l method of
engineering graphics and students in the experimental
sections were taught by the new or experimental method.
Student growth was evaluated through pre and post
te s tin g using a se rie s of four drawing exercises evaluated
by a panel of experts, and a S elf Assessment and A ttitude
Inventory. The Inventory was a researcher developed
instrument designed to measure the s tuden t's own assessment of
i i i
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
s k i l l development as well as the studen t's a ttitu d e toward
drawing and the use of drawing s k i l ls .
An analysis of the re su lts indicated th a t the students
taught hy the experimental method improved th e ir drawing
s k il ls and th e ir assessment of th e ir own drawing s k il ls to a
s ig n ifican tly (PR>F = 0.0001) g reater degree than did
students taught by the tra d itio n a l method. However, there
was no s ig n ifican t difference between the two groups in
th e ir a ttitu d e toward drawing or the use of drawing s k i l ls .
© Copyright Robert A. Raudebaugh, 1985
iv
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would lik e to thank the graphics facu lty a t A.S.U.
fo r th e ir assistance in making th is experiment possible. I
would lik e to extend a special thanks to Professor John
Matson for h is assistance in the development of the
experimental method, to Professor Del Bowers and Dr. John
lavender for th e ir assistance in the evaluation process, and
to Dr. George Beakley, Associate Dean, College of
Engineering a t A.S.U. who had the courage to allow a l l of
th is to happen.
I would also lik e to thank my supervisory committee for
th e ir assistance , especially the co-chairs Drs. Jim Bell and
Zeke P rust. I am also g ra tefu l to the 767 students who
p a rtic ip a ted in the study p a rtic u la rly those in the
experimental sections.
v
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LEST OF TABLES.................................................................................. v i i i
CHAPTER
I . THE PROBLEM...........................................................................1
In tro d u c tio n . ................................... 1Statement of the Problem............................. 6Statement of the Hypotheses...........................................6Importance of the Study...................................................7lim ita tio n s of the Study.................................................8Assumptions. ...........................................................8D efin ition of Terms...........................................................9Summary.................................................................................11
I I . RELATED LITERATURE...........................................................13
Background...........................................................................13S p lit Brain P a tie n ts .......................................................14Studies on Normal and Brain Damaged P a t ie n ts . . ..1 6 E ffects of D ifferent Variables on BrainLat e ra l iz a t i on...................................................................21
Handedness.................................................................21Sex D ifferences.......................................................22Cultural E ffec ts ...................................24Developmental Sequence.........................................25
Cognitive Processing.......................................................27Cognitive Processing and Drawing...............................34
I I I . METHODS AND PROCEDURES...................................................39Description of Methods of In s tru c tio n .....................39
T rad itional Method.................................................39Experimental Method...............................................41
Population...........................................................................45In stru m en ta l on.................................................................45
Test of Drawing S k i l ls .........................................46Self Assessment and A ttitude Inventory 46Construct V a lid ity ............................................... .47Face V a lid ity ...........................................................49
vi
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
Data C o llec tio n .. . S ta t is t ic a l Sample Method of Analysis
495151
IV. RESULTS...............................................................................54Review of the Experiment..............................................54Evaluation R e lia b ili ty ..................................................56Summary of R esults..........................................................57
Drawings ........................................................57S elf Assessment and A ttitude Inventory.........58
Results fo r Each Hypothesis........................................ 65Summary................................................................................66
V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS...............68Summary of the R esults.................................................. 68Discussion of R esults....................................................69Conclusions........................................................................72Rec ommendati ons........................ 73
Rrom the Findings........................... 73Further Research....................................................74
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................79
APPENDICES
A ENGINEERING EDUCATORS INTERVIEWED...................... 82
B SYLLABUS, MATERIALS FOR TRADITIONAL METHOD..........83
C SYLLABUS AND EXAMPLES FOR EXPERIMENTALMETHOD................................................................................98
D INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRE/POST INSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS..........................................................................119
E SELF ASSESSMENT AND ATTITUDE INVENTORY................121
F DISTRIBUTION OF STATISTICAL SAMPLE ACROSSSECTIONS..........................................................................124
G FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION TABLES FOR INVENTORY... 126
H STUDENT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON EXPERIMENTALMETHOD..............................................................................147
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1 EVALUATOR MEAN SCORE CORRELATION...................................56
2 MEAN DRAWING SCORES............................................................ 57
3 ANOVA OP DRAWING SCORES.....................................................58
4 SELF ASSESSMENT MEAN SCORES, ITEMS 1-7,9 AND 10...60
5 ANOVA OF SELF ASSESMENT SCORESITEMS 1-7,9 AND 10......................... 60
5 SELF ASSESSMENT MEAN SCORES, ITEMS 12 AND 13...........62
7 ANOVA OF SELF ASSESSMENT SCORES, ITEMS 12 AND 13..62
8 SELF ASSESSMENT MEAN SCORES, ITEM 11........................... 62
9 ANOVA OF SELF ASSESSMENT SCORES, ITEM 11................... 63
10 FREQUENCY SUMMARY, ITEMS 14-20..................................... ..64
11 CHI SQUARE FOR ITEMS 14-20...............................................65
v i i i
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
This study was intended to determine the re la tiv e
effectiveness of two d iffe ren t methods of teaching v isu a li
zation and freehand drawing s k il ls to engineering students.
Operationally, v isu a liza tio n as re la ted to engineering,
involves the a b ili ty to look a t an object and make an
accurate 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional drawing of the
object; to look a t a 2-dimensional drawing of an object and
make an accurate 3-dimensional drawing of the object, and to
conceptualize an object in the mind and to make drawings of
the object with su ff ic ien t accuracy so th a t others may
duplicate the object in subsequent drawings.
The current system of Technical/Engineering drawing is
based on the projection method of descrip tive geometry
originated by Gaspard Monge in 1765. At the time, Monge was
working as a mathematician for the French government
developing plans for a proposed fo r tre s s . He invented
graphical solutions to shortcut the long, tedious
mathematical calculations involved. With th is basis , the
present graphics system has evolved to incorporate the
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
2
following c h a rac te ris tic s :
1. Mathematical basis for most concepts.
2. Categorizing and cataloguing of concepts and
components.
3. Sequential and analy tica l processes for solving
id e n tif ie d graphics problems.
4. Abstract concepts forming the basis for the problem
solving process.
This system of technical graphics was originated a t the
beginning of the In d u stria l Revolution and continued to
evolve through the early stages of the in d u str ia l era.
According to Toffler (1980), the In d u stria l era was governed
by the p rinc ip les of standardization, specia liza tion ,
synchronization, concentration, maximization and
cen tra liza tio n and natu ra lly the graphics system serving the
needs of the in d u s tr ia l era was governed by the same
p rinc ip les .
During the 1950s, the in d u s tria l era began declining in
importance (T offler, 1980) and i s in the process of being
replaced by an era characterized by information - information
processing and serv ice. According to Toffler, the new era
w ill be governed by p rinc ip les which are the an tith esis of
those which governed the in d u s tr ia l age. The l i te ra tu re
does not reveal what changes in graphics would be needed to
meet the needs of the new information era, however,
interviews with engineering and technology educators a t
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
3
Arizona S tate U niversity (see appendix A fo r l i s t of names)
revealed the following:
1. The most e ssen tia l graphics competency i s the
a b i l i ty to communicate ideas through accurate
freehand sketches.
2. The most important s k i l l required to achieve th is
competency i s th a t of v isu a liza tio n .
3. Engineers w ill no longer be required to make
fin ished drawings but w ill need to be aware of the
use of the computer as the most e ssen tia l tool to
be used to produce drawings and/or drawing data
which meet current industry standards.
Those Engineering facu lty interview ed a l l agreed th a t
v isu a liza tio n and sketching s k i l ls were the most v i ta l for
communicating ideas involving concrete objects. The seven
facu lty members teaching engineering graphics a t Arizona
S tate U niversity would agree with th is assessment. During
the 1984 spring semester, the graphics facu lty met on a
regular basis to work on improving the engineering graphics
course. They were a l l in agreement th a t v isu a liza tio n s k il ls
were the most important, but a t the same time, also the most
d if f ic u l t to teach. I t was agreed th a t a lte rn a tiv e s to the
tra d itio n a l approach based on the p ro jection method of
descrip tive geometry needed to be developed and tested .
Recent research in brain function/behavior ind icates
th a t the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain function
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
4
asymmetrically, where d iffe ren t information processing
functions are la te ra liz e d in to e ith e r the r ig h t or l e f t
hemisphere. According to Bradshaw, "The most dramatic
observation is th a t the hemispheres may s p l i t in to two
largely independent cognitive systems, the l e f t mainly
subserving verbal and analytic processes and the r ig h t non
verbal, v isuospatia l, G estalt or h o lis tic aspects" (Bradshaw
1983, p .259).
The research fu rther indicated th a t the l e f t hemisphere
functions are dominant in most persons liv in g in Western
so c ie tie s . Most researchers in th is f ie ld believe th a t l e f t
dominance is due prim arily to societal/envioronm ental
influences, i . e . the verbal and analytic processes being
deemed much more important in an in d u stria l/tech n ica l
socie ty . This dominance may be fu rther promoted by the
emphasis on analy tic and numerical s k il ls in Western
educational systems. As Bradshaw s ta te s , " The notion of
two largely la te ra liz e d modes of thought (appositional and
propositional) suggests th a t teaching by e ith e r precept or
percept a ffec ts prim arily one or the other hemisphere. Bogen
suggests th a t in emphasizing the 3Rs, our society has tended
to educate mainly one hemisphere - the l e f t . This may have
not only caused d if f ic u l t ie s for individual students but
could mean th a t an en tire student body is being educated
lopsidedly" (Bradshaw 1983, p .273).
The evidence suggests th a t students entering the
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
5
university in order to pursue engineering or technology
degrees may be highly tra ined in areas requiring l e f t
hemisphere processing while having largely neglected the
r ig h t hemisphere v isuaspatia l and h o lis tic aspects of
information processing.
In her research on the possible effects of hemispheric
la te ra liz a tio n in a r t education, Dr. Betty Edwards
discovered possible in terference between the two modes of
processing when attempting to v isualize and draw. " I t
appears th a t the r ig h t brain perceives-processes visual
inform ation-in the way one needs to see in order to draw,
and th a t the l e f t brain perceives in ways th a t seem to
in te rfe re with drawing" (Edwards 1979, p .32).
The ch arac te ris tic s of the graphics system based on
Monge's pro jection method of descriptive geometry which
incorporates a mathematical foundation, abstract concepts,
an a ly tica l and sequential procedures for problem solving and
an extensive vocabulary, requires a very strong i f not
exclusive l e f t mode form of processing. The visual or
graphic images resu ltin g from application of th is system can
be produced almost exclusively by verbal, and analytic
cognitive processes. I t has been assumed by many graphics
educators th a t the v isua liza tion or v isuospatial sk ills
involved would develop upon mastery of the theory or
ab strac t concepts. However, i f the research on hemispheric
la te ra liz a tio n is correct, the l e f t mode processing required
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
6
to master these ab strac t concepts may severely in te rfe re with
or even prevent the use of the v isuospatial and h o lis tic
processes required for v isu a liza tio n and accurate sketching
or in the a r t i s t 's terms, " re a l is t ic drawing".
Statement of the Problem
The problem th is study addressed was to determine the
re la tiv e effectiveness of two d iffe ren t methods of teaching
freehand sketching and v isu a liza tio n s k il ls to engineering
students and fu rth er to determine the e ffec t the two methods
had on the way in which students assessed th e ir personal
drawing s k il ls and a ttitu d es toward drawing.
Statement of the Hypotheses
The following nu ll hypotheses were tested :
1.0 There was no s ig n ifican t difference in the a b il i ty
to draw or v isualize between students taught by the
experimental method and students taught by the tra d itio n a l
method.
2.0 There was no s ig n ifican t difference in the degree
of drawing improvement indicated by student s e lf assessment
between students taught by the experimental method and
students taught by the tra d itio n a l method.
3.0 There was no s ig n ifican t difference in a ttitu d e
toward drawing and the use of drawing s k il ls between
students taught by the experimental method and students
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
7
taught by the tra d itio n a l method.
Importance of the Study
The graphics faculty and a t le a s t six of the
engineering faculty (those interviewed) a t Arizona S tate
U niversity agreed th a t a change in the approach to graphics
education for engineering students was needed. Both groups
f e l t th a t the most important sk il ls of v isu a liza tio n and
freehand sketching were not being properly developed by
a ss is tin g students in mastering the tra d itio n a l projection
method of descrip tive geometiy used in engineering graphics.
However, the proposed new approach , which is based on
methods developed by an a r t educator using tra d itio n a l a r t
education techniques modified by the theories of cognitive
processing which are based on research in the area of brain
functional asymmetries, had not been tested with engineering
s tuden ts.
In l ig h t of the changes in the economic s tructu re of
our society , the advent of computers and the accompanying
explosion in information and changes in information
processing, a new approach to graphics education for
engineering students needs to be found and researched. I f
successful, th is new approach may not only a ffe c t the
education of 1000 or more engineering students a t Arizona
S tate U niversity each year, but could become the model for
graphics education for engineering students across the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
8
nation, perhaps even on an in te rn a tio n a l scale .
lim ita tio n s of the Study
The lim ita tio n s of the study were as follows:
1. The population fo r the study consisted of those
students enrolled fo r the course ECE 105 a t the
beginning of the f a l l 1985 semester a t Arizona
S ta te U niversity .
2. In s tru c to rs were assigned to teach the experimental
sections on a volunteer b asis .
3. The se lec tion of the experimental and control
groups had to be made on the basis of in s tru c to r
scheduling ra th e r than random se lec tion .
4. The new method (experimental approach) was being
developed a t the same time i s was being evaluated.
Therefore, the evaluation consisted of comparing a
highly refined tra d itio n a l method to an unrefined
experimental method.
5. Three of the four in s tru c to rs using the
experimental method had no previous experience with
a r t education techniques and none of these
in s tru c to rs had previous knowledge of the methods
based on theories of cognitive processing.
Assumptions
The study was conducted under the following assumptions:
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
9
1. That any intervening variab les which might a ffe c t
student performance were d istrib u ted evenly across
both the experimental and control groups.
2. That student ch a rac te ris tic s such as in te llig en ce ,
experience, a ttitu d e , age, sex, e tc ., were
d istrib u ted evenly across both the experimental and
control groups.
3. That in s tru c to r ch a rac te ris tic s such as experience,
tra in in g , enthusiasm, preparation, e tc ., were
d istrib u ted evenly across the experimental and
control groups.
D efinition of Terms
The following defin itions apply to terms used in the study:
1.V isualization Forming of mental images of something
not present to the sigh t, an abstraction , e tc . (Webster).
Operationally; the a b i l i ty to look a t an object and make a
r e a l is t ic drawing of i t , to make a 2-D drawing of an object
from a 3-D drawing of an object, or to make a 3-D drawing
from a 2-D drawing of an object. Also to conceptualize an
idea of an object and make e ith er a 2 or 3-D drawing of the
object.
2. Drawing A generic term to describe any graphic
image of an object on a varie ty of media ( i .e . paper, film ,
canvas, computer screen, e tc .) using one or more of a
varie ty of processes ( i .e . pencil, ink, charcoal, chalk,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW
10
computer,instruments e tc .) .
3. Freehand Drawing Graphic images produced on paper
by means of a pencil (or sim ilar item) without the aid of
instrum ents.
4. R-Mode Processing U tiliz ing cognitive processing
generally associated with the rig h t hemisphere of the brain
which incorporates visuospatial re la tionsh ips, i s h o lis tic ,
and in teg ra tiv e .
5. 1-Mode Processing U tiliz ing cognitive processing
generally associated with the l e f t hemisphere of the brain
which incorporates verbal, analytic and sequential
processes.
6. Visuospatial Pertaining to the visual
re la tionsh ips of the e n tit ie s , i . e . , lin e s , contours, edges,
shapes, space, shades, and shadows of a drawing, image, or
object.
7. H olistic Pertaining to the concept of holism,
i . e . the view th a t an organic or in tegrated whole has a
re a l i ty independent of and greater than the sum of i t s
p a rts .
8 In tegrative Pertaining to making whole, renewing,
bring together parts; to put or bring (parts) together in to
a whole; unify; to give or indicate the whole, sum, or to ta l
of.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PREVIEW