Learning theories: Applications for instruction in constraint-based solid modeling and other engineering graphics topics

ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 8953-8964

  Hartman, Nathan W ^a   Branoff, Theodore J ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT-BASED MODELING; ENGINEERING GRAPHICS; GRAPHICS EDUCATION; LEARNING THEORIES;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; GRAPHIC METHODS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; TEACHING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 5444235036     PISSN: 01901052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. th ed.). New York: Longman.
2. th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
3. Ref. 1, p. 3.
4. Branoff, T. J., Hartman, N. W. & Wiebe, E. N. (2002). Three-dimensional solid modeling in an introductory engineering graphics course: Re-examining the curriculum. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 66 (1), 5-10.
5. Baxter, D. H. (2002). Evaluating student performance in a freshman graphics course to provide early intervention for students with visualization and/or design intent difficulties. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 16-19, 2002.
6. th Midyear Conference of the Engineering Design Graphics Division of the American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis, Indiana, October 27-30, 2002.
7. Wiebe, E.N. (1999). 3-D constraint-based modeling: Finding common themes. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 65(3), 15-31.
8. Ref. 2, pp. 278-279.
9. Ref. 2, p. 279.
10. Ref. 2, p. 302.
11. Theory Into Practice. URL: http://tip.psychology.org/bandura.html. Accessed January 2, 2004.
12. Ref. 2, p. 317.
13. Ref. 2, p. 318.
14. Ref. 2, p. 315.
15. Ref. 2, p. 327.
16. Ref. 2, p. 338.
17. rd ed.) New York, NY: Freeman.
18. Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergammon.
19. Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 671-684.
20. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual code approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21. Newel, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Neath, I. (1998). Human memory. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.
23. Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2 ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
24. Wickens, C.D. & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. (3 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25. rd Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
26. th Midyear Conference of the Engineering Design Graphics Division of the American Society for Engineering Education, Tempe, Arizona, 1990.
27. Hartman, N.W. (2003). Towards the development and definition of expertiseint he use of constraint-based CAD tools: Examining practicing professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC.
28. Branoff, T. J., Wiebe, E. N., & Hartman, N. W. (2003). Integrating Constraint-Based CAD into an Introductory Engineering Graphics Course: Activities and Grading Strategies. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Nashville, Tennessee, June 20-23, 2003.
29. Miller, C. L., & Bertoline, G. R. (1991). Spatial visualization research and theories. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 55 (3), 5-14.
30. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. & Farr, M.J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.