Abstract
Motivations for the research activity on teaching methods could be listed as: institutional duty; reduction of evaluation costs; establishing convenient relationships between teaching, research and publications; developing educational programs for non-academic learners; consolidating learning outcomes. Teaching is the most commonly recognized mission of university, and evaluation has a cost in terms of time and resources, both precious: at least a portion of the exam, the one concerning factual knowledge, may be done in economies of scale. The most of basic technical drawing teachers works with very large classes and faces the dilemma of choosing what to sacrifice among teaching quality, research projects, earning opportunities, personal interests, etc. A possible partial solution to such a dilemma is to work on projects aimed at teaching innovation, so to create convenient relationships between teaching, research and publications. A further consequence of lowering the cost of evaluation would be to make cost effective a more tests and, consequently, to achieve less temporary learning. Not just simple notions but also skills and abilities. In this paper the authors presents a structured synthesis of teaching innovation experiences of a ten-year span. Over time, they were divided into four integrated directions: definition of prerequisites, expected outcome evaluation grids; authentic assessment methods; teaching and learning tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ben-Peretz M, Flores MA (2018) Tension and paradoxes in teaching: implications for teacher education. Eur J Teach Educ 41(2):202–213
Hubbard JK, Couch BA (2018) The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format. Comput Educ 120:1–12
Duckworth E (1986) Teaching as a research. Harvard Educ Rev 56(4):481–496
Thalheimer V (2010) How much do people forget? Retrieved 26 Feb 2018, from http://www.work-learning.com/catalog.html
Baronio G, Villa V (2007) Precorso di Disegno Tecnico Industriale; ADM website (http://adm.ing.unibo.it); Italy. ISBN 88-902096-0-7
Metraglia R, Villa V, Baronio G, Adamini R (2015) High school graphics experience influencing the self-efficacy of first-year engineering students in an introductory engineering graphics course. Eng Des Graph J 79(3):16–30
Metraglia R, Baronio G, Villa V (2011) Learning levels in technical drawing education: Proposal for an assessment grid based on the European qualifications framework (EQF). In: ICED 11–18th international conference on engineering design—impacting society through engineering design, vol 8, pp. 161–172
Metraglia R, Baronio G, Villa V (2015) Issues in learning engineering graphics fundamentals: Shall we blame cad? In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED, 10 (DS 80–10), pp 31–40
Scouller K (1998) The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Educ 4(35):453–472. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003196224280
Metraglia R, Villa V (2014) Engineering graphics education: webcomics as a tool to improve weaker students’ motivation. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 7(19):4106–4114
Baronio G, Motyl B, Paderno D (2016) Technical drawing learning tool-level 2: an interactive self-learning tool for teaching manufacturing dimensioning. Comput Appl Eng Educ 24:519–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21728
Speranza D, Baronio G, Motyl B, Filippi S, Villa V (2017) Best practices in teaching technical drawing: experiences of collaboration in three Italian Universities. In: Lecture notes in mechanical engineering—advances on mechanics, design engineering and manufacturing (pp 903–913)
Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH (2004) School engagement. Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res 1(74):59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Kahu ER (2013) Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud High Educ 5(38):758–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Violante MG, Vezzetti E (2016) Guidelines to design engineering education in the twenty-first century for supporting innovative product development. Eur J Eng Educ 6(42):1344–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1293616
Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J, Wittrock MC (2000) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, by Lorin W. Anderson e David R. Krathwohl, Allyn and Bacon. ISBN 978-0-8013-1903-7
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baronio, G. et al. (2019). Integrated Approach to the Innovation of Technical Drawing Teaching Methods. In: Cavas-Martínez, F., Eynard, B., Fernández Cañavate, F., Fernández-Pacheco, D., Morer , P., Nigrelli, V. (eds) Advances on Mechanics, Design Engineering and Manufacturing II. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12346-8_68
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12346-8_68
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12345-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12346-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)