Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CAD training for digital product quality: a formative approach with computer-based adaptable resources for self-assessment

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the engineering and manufacturing sectors transform their processes into those of a digital enterprise, future designers and engineers must be trained to guarantee the quality of the digital models that are created and consumed throughout the product’s lifecycle. Formative training approaches, particularly those based on online rubrics, have been proven highly effective for improving CAD modeling practices and the quality of the corresponding outcomes. However, an effective use of formative rubrics to improve performance must consider two main factors: a proper understanding of the rubric and an accurate self-assessment. In this paper we develop these factors by proposing CAD training based on self-assessment through online formative rubrics enriched with adaptable resources. We analyzed self-assessment data, such as time spent, scoring differences between trainee and instructor or use of the adaptable resources, of fourteen different CAD exams. Results show that resources are more effective when used without any incentives. The comparison of assessments by quality criterion can facilitate the identification of issues that may remain unclear to trainees during the learning process. These results can guide the definition of new strategies for self-training processes and tools, which can contribute to the higher-quality outcomes and CAD practices that are required in model-bases engineering environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig.3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwell, S., & Specht, M. (2019). Solving instructional design dilemmas to develop a Video Enhanced Rubric with modeling examples to support mental model development of complex skills: The Viewbrics-project use case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 983–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agosta, S., & Sartori, G. (2013). The autobiographical IAT: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 41, 519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, P., & Norman, G. (2011). Self-assessment or self deception? a lack of association between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(11), 2406–2413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertoline, G. R., Hartman, N. W., & Ross, W. A. (2019). Fundamentals of Solid Modeling and Graphic Communication. New York: McGraw Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodein, Y., Rose, B., & Caillaud, E. (2013). A roadmap for parametric CAD efficiency in the automotive industry. Computer-Aided Design, 45(10), 1198–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher-education - A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Company, P., Contero, M., Otey, J., & Plumed, R. (2015). Approach for developing coordinated rubrics to convey quality criteria in MCAD training. Computer-Aided Design, 63, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Company, P., Contero, M., Otey, J., Camba, J. D., Agost, M. J., & Pérez-López, D. C. (2017). Web-based system for adaptable rubrics: Case study on CAD assessment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Company, P., & González Lluch, C. (2013). CAD 3D con Solidworks® Tomo I: Diseño básico. Publicacions Universitat Jaume I. https://doi.org/10.6035/Sapientia86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Company, P., Otey, J., Contero, M., Agost, M. J., & Almiñana, A. (2016). Implementation of adaptable rubrics for CAD model quality formative assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2A), 749–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contero, M., Company, P., Vila, C., & Aleixos, N. (2002). Product data quality and collaborative engineering. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 22(3), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodaj, A. (2012). Social desirability and self-reports: testing a content and response-style model of socially desirable responding. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 651–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, C., Jaime, A., Sanchez, A., Blanco, J. M., & Heras, J. (2016). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among online self-, peer-, external- and instructor-assessments: The competitive effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological science in the public interest: a journal of the American Psychological Society, 5(3), 69–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). From flawed self-assessment to blatant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A. W., Leeson, R. M. A., Newton John, T. R. O., & Petrie, A. (2005). The influence of self-deception and impression management upon self-assessment in oral surgery. British Dental Journal, 198, 765–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher-education - a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, A. P. (2007). When vying reveals lying: The timed antagonistic response alethiometer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 621–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamade, R. F. (2009). Profiling the desirable CAD trainee: Technical background, personality attributes, and learning preferences. Journal of Mechanical Design, 131(12), 121009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamade, R. F., & Artail, H. A. (2008). A study of the influence of technical attributes of beginner CAD users on their performance. Computer-Aided Design, 40(2), 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2007.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves, T. (2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological monographs, 54(6), 1–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManus, I. C., Lissauer, T., & Williams, S. E. (2005). Learning in practice. Detecting cheating in written medical examinations by statistical analysis of similarity of answers: Pilot study. BMJ, 330, 1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.P. (2019). The Necessity of AutoNomous Evaluation of Parametric Modeling and Drafting Instruction. In: Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/33409.

  • Myers, D. G., & Ridl, J. (1979). Can we all be better than average. Psychology Today, 13(3), 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikou, S. A., & EcoNomides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’s cience motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parke, C. S. (2001). An approach that examines sources of misfit to improve performance assessment items and rubrics. Educational Assessment, 7(3), 201–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). 2-Component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piegl, L. A. (2005). Ten challenges in computer-aided design. Computer-Aided Design, 37(4), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J. (1997). What´s wrong and what´s right with rubrics? Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubrics use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard, M. A., Dickhäuser, O., Marksteiner, T., & Sporer, S. L. (2011). The case of Pinoccio: teachers’ ability to detect deception. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossignac, J. (2004). Education-driven research in CAD. Computer-Aided Design, 36(14), 1461–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2003.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, C., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Features students really expect from learning analytics. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundström, A. (2005). Self-assessment of kNowledge and abilities. A literature study. Educational Measurement, 54. Umea University.

  • Walczyk, J. J., Mahoney, K. T., Doverspiek, D., & Griffith-Ross, D. A. (2009). Cognitive lie detection: Response time and consistency of answers as cues to deception. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1), 33–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willard, G., & Gramzow, R. H. (2009). Beyond oversights, lies, and pies in the sky: Exaggeration as goal projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(4), 477–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, W., & Galloway, R. (2005). Using behavioral modeling technology to capture designer’s intent. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Castellón de la Plana, Spain

    Maria-Jesus Agost

  2. Institute of New Imaging Technologies, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Castellón de la Plana, Spain

    Pedro Company

  3. Instituto de Investigación E Innovación en Bioingeniería (I3B), Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain

    Manuel Contero

  4. Computer Graphics Technology Department, Purdue University, Purdue, IN, USA

    Jorge D. Camba

Authors
  1. Maria-Jesus Agost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro Company
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manuel Contero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge D. Camba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria-Jesus Agost.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agost, MJ., Company, P., Contero, M. et al. CAD training for digital product quality: a formative approach with computer-based adaptable resources for self-assessment. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 1393–1411 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09651-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09651-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation