A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING...

24
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 pho tograph 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 ap pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu ing 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 micro fiche 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 versily Microfilms International Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREVIEW

description

 

Transcript of A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING...

Page 1: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 2: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.

PREVIEW

Page 3: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 4: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.

PREVIEW

Page 5: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 6: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout permission.

PREVIEW

Page 7: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 8: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 9: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 10: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 11: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 12: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 13: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 14: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 15: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 16: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 17: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 18: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 19: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 20: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 21: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 22: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 23: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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

Page 24: A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF TEACHING FREEHAND DRAWING AND VISUALIZATION SKILLS TO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

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