Evaluation of Student Outcomes and Satisfaction on the Elective Course of Technical Drawing
Prof.Dr. İlker Usta*
This study outlines the performance of beginning students in technical drawing, and evaluates the student outcomes and satisfaction in the learning and teaching process based on the elective course for undergratuate students in the university. The exam scores and student feedback revealed that students –who willing to learn technical drawing and choose the course in the elective status– satisfy with this course. The student outcomes and survey findings showed that eager students can learn engineering drawing successfully only if they realized that they could draw technically on paper using the drawing tools.
Key Words: Technical Drawing, Elective Course, Non-Engineerring Students, Satisfaction
ÖZET
Bu çalışma, seçmeli olarak düzenlenmiş teknik resim dersini yüklenen öğrencilerin başarısı ile ders müfredatı kapsamında kullanılan öğretim teknikleri ve ölçme-değerlendirme faaliyetleri dahilinde öğrencilerin memnuniyetini belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sınav sonuçları ve öğrencilerin dersle ilgili değerlendirmeleri, seçmeli teknik resim dersini seçen öğrencilerin bu derste başarılı olduklarını ortaya koymuştur. Öğrencilerin aldığı sonuçlar ve anket aracılığıyla elde edilen geri bildirim verileri, teknik resim öğrnmeye istekli öğrencilerin, çizim araçlarını kullanarak kağıt üzerine elle çizim yapabildiklerini farkketiklerinde, teknik resim çizimini başarıyla gerçekleştirebileceklerini göstermiştir. Anahtar Sözcük: Teknik Resim, Seçmeli Ders, Mühendislik Harici Öğrenciler, Memnuniyet
1. Intruduction
As it is well known that education is the key to a better future. In the light of this vision, the Bologna Declaration was signed in June 1999 to provide continent Europe and its citizens with the levels of education and skills required in a globally competitive and knowledge-based society by establishing the European Higher Education Area (Eurydice Network, 2010). Turkey is one of the signatory countries to establish the general framework for the modernisation and reform of European higher education based on the Bologna Declaration. The process of reform came to be called the Bologna process afterwards. According to Eurydice Network (2010), the Bologna process has brought about fundamental and dramatic change in higher education structures across the European Higher Education Area. In this context, this is also the case for Turkey. Since the beginning of the Bologna process, Turkish higher education system has grown significantly due to driving the most important reforms in the structure of higher education. The delivery of additional and/or new courses (either compulsory or elective) has become an attractive option for expanding the educational opportunities available to students within the recent aspect of the Bologna process in Turkey. As previously stated by Rivera et al. _______________________________________________
*Hacettepe University, Depatment of Wood Products Industrial Engineering, 06352 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey iusta@hacettepe.edu.tr
(2002) institutions are actively pursuing an attractive option in order to expand its reach to new students and to facilitate the scheduling of existing students. In this way, comparative view of student outcomes (i.e. student performance and student satisfaction) and instructor experiences are the major focuses of attention for the impact of the Bologna process to improvement in quality at national level.
In this manner, for the last three academic terms, students in our university had the opportunity to enroll in such an elective course that was created due to Bologna process. This article exemplifies the satisfaction of students in the elective course in terms of technical drawing which is mandated in engineering field.
Drawings (that could be described as design language) are used to describe shape and size of object in the frame of preciseness because they are able to communicate information about two or three dimensions of the object based on its width and height, and thickness. This developed language of communicating shape and size of object is called “Engineering Drawing” which is the language of engineers by the help of which they describe accurately shape and size of object no matter how complex it is (Khabia and Khabia, 2012). In fact, an engineering drawing, which is used to fully and clearly define requirements for engineered items, is a type of technical drawing (URL 1). Although drawing is essential for communicating ideas in industry and engineering, all the fields may require the knowledge of technical drawing. Technical drawing, also known as drafting or draughting, is the act and discipline of composing plans that visually communicate how something functions or is to be constructed (URL 2).
Technical drawing may seen as a formal language of engineering and technology, and it resides in the core of most engineering and technology education. As defined by Lille (2013), it appears to be the only intercultural universal language in two dialects within the frame of orthographic projection which is a way of drawing an object from different directions based on the front, top and side views. In this circumstances, there are two ways of drawing in orthographic: the First-angle orthogonal projection (2D) and the Third-angle orthogonal projection (3D). They differ only in the position of the front, top and side views. However, it is not always readily perceived by students, and hence, it is very difficult to explain and teaching the concepts of technical drawing in either 2D or 3D aspects. Urdarevik (2013) mentioned that one of the biggest problems engineering students are facing is visualization. In this context, Khabia and Khabia (2012) expressed that students with less visualization ability find great difficulty in understanding the three dimensional concepts, necessary for understanding of the subject. Therefore, one of the most important questions in the teaching of technical drawing is how to explain both two and three dimensional concepts of projection to students more efficiently.
Since teaching the concepts of technical/engineering drawing to students has always been a challenging task for the teachers/lecturers, there are various strategies to improve the performance of students in technical drawing within the framework of the engineering and related fields. According to Abiwu (2001), designers have tried to find some effective methods of teaching the concepts and principles in technical/engineering drawing especially to beginning drafting and design students who normally have difficulty in dealing with spatially related problems. A beginning course in design and drafting should, therefore, be taught in a way so as to help students develop confidence in their ability to learn and to actually experience success in the learning process. In order to counter this issue, Khabia and Khabia (2012) reported the help of digital techniques which includes 3D models presentations on projector and video clippings.
There are numerous reports on the appropriate strategies in instruction and right attitude in the teaching process for improving the performance of students in technical drawing, however, relatively few studies have been made to show the effects of the students profile. This paper, therefore, reports the students'
performance concerning with learning technical drawing based on the cognitive factors such as individuals' perceptions and achievement in the frame of the elective course within the undergraduate programs of the university.
2. Method
When the Bologna process begins there was compulsory course of technical drawing only for undergraduate engineering program in our institution. This course was already formatted as 2 hours theory and 2 hours application per lecture, and called “Computer Aided Technical Drawing” due to using the software within the class. As our institution has progressed on the Bologna process, we assumed that some students studying in the other fields may tend to learn technical drawing while they are studying in their own vocational areas. Therefore, the new course in the title of “Descriptive Geometry and Technical Drawing” was designed as the type of elective course for the students essentially studying in a various departments of the university apart from the engineering studies within the frame of two hours theory and two hours application per lecture. The elective course “Descriptive Geometry and Technical Drawing” hereafter referred to as “DgtD”. 2.1. The Structure of Course
The elective course DgtD was set up based on the specific criteria in accordance with the Bologna process which aims to make national systems more compatible. The following criteria were taken into consideration while designing the course: - Learning and Teaching Strategies
- Course Objectives - Learning Outcomes - Course Content - Course Outline Weekly - Assesment Methods
- Workload and ECTS Calculation
ECTS, used here synonomously with The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, is a central tool in the Bologna Process that helps to design, describe, and deliver study programmes and award higher education qualifications (URL 3). Course descriptions contain ‘learning outcomes’ (i.e. what students are expected to know, understand and be able to do) and workload (i.e. the time students typically need to achieve these outcomes). Each learning outcome is expressed in terms of credits, with a student workload ranging from 1 500 to 1 800 hours for an academic year, and one credit generally corresponds to 25-30 hours of work (European Commission, 2009). In our institution whereby one credit corresponds to 30 hours of work.
Learning and Teaching Strategies
The following strategies are subjected to be applying to the course DgtD: Lecture, Question and Answer, Drill and Practice, Project Design, and Management.
Course Objectives
o To make familiar with a theory of projection based on the basic principles of two-and-three dimesional geometric projection of solid objects,
o To develop skills for technical drawing in accordance with the international technical drawing standards, and ability to draw two-and-three dimensional views of simple and complex objects,
o To ensure the realization of the sections based on the cutting planes and display the scanning area,
o To prepare a dimensioning and the necessary definitions regarding to the sample parts.
Learning Outcomes:
Completion of this course, students will have the following outcomes:
o Identify drawing tools and learn how and where to use them, comprehend the concepts of scaling and dimensioning
o Aware of the concepts of descriptive geometry, projection, perspective, and design description in relation to the technical drawing,
o Obtain knowledge of creation the imaginary projection of objects based on the coordinates given by the principles of descriptive geometry
o Construct standard projection views of sample objects regarding to the front, top, and side views, and perform to draw both the 2-dimensional and 3-dimesional plots
o Know the concept of perspective, and perform to create the 3-dimensional appearances of sample objects
o Explain the concept of sectioning, showing the cutting planes and highlight the section by hatch application, draw sectioned views of the objects according to the rules and standards
o Gain knowledge about the technical drawing which is the main communication tool in the field of engineering, and obtain information about the preparation of documentation.
Course Content
The course content for DgtD are as follows: o Line types in technical drawing, drawing lines o Concept of descriptive geometry and its importance, o Phenomenon of projection, projection planes of 3D and 2D
o Drawing of front, top, and side views of the objects as a two dimensional aspect on the frame of 2D projection plane, drawing of three dimensional views of the sample objects on the frame of 3D projection plane,
o Concept of technical drawing, areas of use and the importance of technical drawing
o Technical drawing tools and materials used in the presentation, drawing paper, drawing lines and line weights, scales, standard text and numbers, designation, o Generation the 2D appearances of sample objects under the front, top, and
side views, and measuring technique
o The concept of perspective, the creation of simple and complex aspects of the objects according to the method of isometric perspective
o The concept of sectioning, cross-section and invisible phenomenon of interface areas, the creation and promotion scanning area
o The approach of design description
The elective course DgtD (Descriptive Geometry and Technical Drawing) was designed for 14 weeks teaching (including one week for midterm exam) and plus one week for final exam. The course DgtD was designed to be given in both the
fall and spring semesters to reach more students. The midterm exam was performed in the nineth week of the considered terms.
The elective course DgtD contains no issues regarding to use of software for technical drawing. In this circumstances, all of the teaching weeks (including the midterm and final exams) were organised for drawing by using the hand tools on the plaid papers.
Course Outline Weekly
The following course outline was designed weekly in accordance with sequential learning to organize the issues step-by-step manner for the students:
Weeks Topics
01 Introduction to the descriptive geometry and technical drawing, its role of engineering design, concept of standard drawing tools, line types, scaling, dimensioning, representation of writing and numbers, design description
02 Concept of descriptive geometry, and approach of the procetion, projection planes based on the 3-dimensioanl and the 2-dimensional aspects
03 The principles of projection and practice of teaching on projection of 3D and 2D planes
04 The principles of projection and practice of teaching on projection of 3D and 2D planes
05 The principles of projection and practice of teaching on projection of 3D and 2D planes
06 Projected views of components based on the front, top and side views 07 Projected views of simple solid objects based on the front, top and side
views
08 Projected views of complex solid objects based on the front, top and side views
09 Midterm Exam
10 Concept of perspective, preparation of simple and complex views of the objects according to their isometric perspective
11 The practice of teaching on isometric perspective using simple solid objects
12 The practice of teaching on isometric perspective using complex solid objects
13 Concept of sectioning, interface and identification of invisible cross-sectional areas
14 The practice of teaching on sectioning 15 Final Exam
Assesment Methods
Course Activities Number Percentage
Attendance 14 5
Laboratory - -
Application 5 10
Field activities - -
Specific practical training - -
Assignments 5 10
Presentation - -
Seminar - -
Midterms 1 20
Final exam 1 40
Total 6 100
Semester activities contributing grade succes (%) 5 60 Final exam contributing grade succes (%) 1 40
TOTAL 100
Workload and ECTS Calculation (Student Work Load Table)
Activities Number (week) Duration (hour) Work Load (hour) Course Duration (includes exams: 14x
weekly course hours)
14 4 56
Laboratory - - -
Application 5 2 10
Specific practical training - - -
Field activities - - -
Outclass course work hours
(Preliminary work, reinforcement, etc)
12 2 24
Presentation / Seminar Preparation - - -
Project 1 8 8
Homework assignment 5 2 10
Midterms 1 6 6
Semester Final Exam 1 6 6
Total Work Load 120
ECTS 4
Grading and Issues for the Exams
As the evaluation of the exams was taken into consideration by hand drawing, the grading in both midterm and final exams was made on the issues as follows:
Midterm Exam Final Exam
30% Test Question 15% Matching 15% Completion
70% Drawing on the plaid paper 35% Descriptive Geomtry 35% Technical Drawing
30% Test Question 15% Matching 15% Completion
70% Drawing on the plaid paper 20% Descriptive Geomtry 20% Technical Drawing 20% Perspective Drawing 10% Sectioning
2.2. Student Outcomes and Satisfaction
To determine if there were significant differences in student performance for learning technical drawing between the students studying in the engineering fields and the other fields, student outcomes were evaluated as the relative performance of the students by comparing the scores of the midterm and final exams. A comparison was undertaken using average scores of the two examinations on the plaid paper regarding to the issues on Descriptive Geometry, Technical Drawing, Matching, Completion, and Sectioning and Sectional Drawing Interface.
As student satisfaction is an important measure for the continued success of this course, student feelings about the course offered by our institution was accomplished by asking the students how they felt about the course by a closed-ended questionnaire. In this manner, a five point Likert scale with a range from "Strongly Disagree" to Strongly Agree" was used to gauge student evaluation of course and instructor via the template illustrated in Figure 1. In this case, a part of the questionnaire of URL 4 was utilized as the template of our questionnaire that we used for student evaluation of the course and the instructor. By the way, students ranked the criteria about their satisfaction on the course and the instructor using the anonymous questionnaire following the final exam at the end of the considered semester in which the course was undertaken by the students.
The following information is requested of you by your instructor for his or her use in maintaining the quality of instruction:
(5) Strongly Agree, (4) Agree, (3) Neutral, (2) Disagree, (1) Strongly Disagree Preparation and Teaching Skill
The instructor comes to class well prepared
The instructor appears to be well informed and up-to-date on the subject matter The instructor’s presentations are organized
The instructor’s presentation is clear and audible
The instructor provides a sufficient number of definitions, examples and illustrations to help me understand the concepts
Student Interaction and Teaching Commitment
The instructor answers questions in a manner that promotes learning The instructor encourages questions from the students
The instructor appears to know when a student does not understand the material The instructor inspires me to become engaged with the subject
The instructor treats all students courteously Professionalism
The instructor stimulates intellectual curiosity
The instructor is careful and precise when answering questions The instructor is tolerant of alternate views
The description of the class in the course catalog is accurate The exams are appropriate to the course
Please evaluate the instructor and the course in general:
(5) Excellent (4) Above Average (3) Average (2) Below Average (1) Unsatisfactory Overall rating of this instructor
Overall rating of this course
2.3. Interpretation of Data
The contrast between teaching evaluations and the distributions of student satisfaction were illustrated by using a radar chart, which is a graphical method of displaying multivariate data in the form of a two-dimensional chart of three or more quantitative variables represented on axes starting from the same point (URL 5). The radar chart is also known as star plot, and according to Chambers et al (1983), star plot is a useful way to display multivariate observations with an arbitrary number of variables. In this context, each observation is represented as a star-shaped figure with one ray for each variable, and for a given observation, the length of each ray is made proportional to the size of that variable.
3. Results and Discussion
The results and discussion section of this study was edited based on the student outcomes, and student satisfaction regarding to the first and the second terms (semesters) of the elective course DgtD (Descriptive Geometry and Technical Drawing) as follows.
As the technical drawing requires special attention to be able to teach students in a great care, the class quota was determined twenty for each term to provide appropriate and sufficient environment in order to ensure an efficient learning. Although the number of students enrolled as many as this capacity, the most important appearence in this elective course was that girls were almost five times grater than boys in the first semester and half as many as the boys in the second semester. The number of girls attending to the course were 15 in the fisrt semester, and 7 in the second semester.
Other highlighted the key findings was that the students came from different programs as expected, i.e. the number of the programs was 7 in the first attempt of the course whereas was 12 in the second attempt of the course.
3.1. Student Outcomes
The average exam scores of the students are given in Table 1 for each exam at both terms (i.e. semesters). As is evident from examining the results, there is little difference between average exam scores for all classes in either the first or the second semesters. Statistical analysis using t-tests indicates that there is no significant difference between the exam scores based on the midterm and the final exams for the same class, and for the two terms. According to these exam results, students have been successful in the examinations, and they have completed this elective course successfully.
Table 1: Average exam scores
course-attempted
Examination First Second
Midterm Exam Score 67,9 70,8
test 30p 22,8 24,6
drawing 70p 45,1 46,2
Final Exam Score 73,4 76,5
test 30p 25,6 26,8
Comparison of the average exam scores in Table 1 clearly shows how close the results were. For instance, mean exam score of the test over 30 points varied from 22,8 to 25,6 in the first semester, and 24,6 to 26,8 in the second semester. These results can also be examined by the hand drawing exams. In this case, mean exam score of hand drawing (over 70 points) varied from 45,1 to 47,8 in the first semester, and 46,2 to 49,7 in the second semester. This is therefore reflected in the average exam scores of the midterm and the final exams which were both greater in the second semester than in the first semester. In this context, it is important to mention that t-tests between paired sets of average exam scores also indicated no significant difference between the exams and the semesters.
To gauge student satisfaction, students were asked to specify what they think about the course, and to rank these on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) by using the mandated questionnaire after the final exam. In this manner, students defined their views about the course and the instructor based on the following headings: Preparation and Teaching Skill (Table 2a, Figure 2a), Student Interaction and Teaching Commitment (Table 2b, Figure 2b), and Professionalism (Table 2c, Figure 2c). The results are listed in tables and diagrammed in figures to explore the results in accordance with the subtitles. In this circumstance, tables 2abc show the data collected from this survey, and figures 2abc illustrate these findings as radar charts.
Examination of the survey results showed that students enrolled in the first semester were somewhat less satisfied with the course than other students in the second semester. This was confirmed through the use of student feedback about overall rating of the course and the instructor. The average exam scores showed evidence of different satisfaction levels due to differing students profile as they came from the various departments. In this case, it is quite likely that students' perceptions and achievement regarding to the elective course formats based on the technical drawing may have had some impact on their satisfaction level.
3.1. Student Satisfaction: Preparation and Teaching Skill
The survey findings of student outcomes and satisfaction based on the preparation and teaching skill (Table 2a and Figure 2a) showed that all students ranked the subtitles as the similar order in either semesters with little difference. In this context, according to the student’s views, the most important criteria about the preparation and teaching skill is that providing a sufficient number of definitions, examples and illustrations by the instructor to help students understanding the concepts. On this basis, well organized presentations within the clear and audible aspects have the function to learn the considered issues effectively during lecture. The observations also indicated that the instructor should be well informed and up-to-date on the subject matter, and come to class well prepared, afterwards.
As it was stated by Sidelinger and McCrosky (1997), teacher clarity is an important component of teacher effectiveness because clarity in instruction enhances student cognitive learning, and it also increases student affect for both the instructor and the subject matter. At this point, the findings of the present research showed that although not entirely the instructor was perceived as clear and understandable by his students. According to the results, even though the overall rating of the instructor based on the preparation and teaching skill was slightly less and more than 4,00 points, the instructor was ranked as quite perceived as nonverbally immediate, assertive, and responsive. As this elective course was introduced to the students for the first time, there might have been a strange inexperience situation at this stage. Due to the fact that this elective course was attempted for the first time to the students essentially for non-engineering fields, the instructor was probably without knowing exactly how it should be prepared for
class. In this case, examination results and evaluation of student satisfaction seemed to confirm this assumption.
3.2. Student Satisfaction on Student Interaction and Teaching Commitment
The results of student outcomes and satisfaction regarding to the student interaction and teaching commitment (Table 2b and Figure 2b) revealed that the instructor's approach to student is the most important case in the eyes of students. According to survey findings, the instructor’s attitude for answering the questions in a manner that promotes learning is the major subject for interaction. In that aspect, the instructor should treat all students courteously, and encourage questions from the students to conduct the course effectively. This is a way of becoming responsive instructor, and necessary to improve the quality of lecture.
Although students of either semesters ranked differently, the instructor should contact the students at all times by carefully monitoring his behavior to be patient, and make some additional efforts about application with more explanation if the matter is not resolved satisfactorily.
It can be understood from the recent results that students were more satisfied with the teaching commitment. In this regard, student interaction has a positive impact on student outcomes. Both mean and overall ratings about the student interaction and teaching commitment showed higher values in comparison the other headings. It means that supportive and positive relationships provide a good cooperation between instructor and students within the course and this interaction positively influence these outcomes by raising the satisfaction.
The results of our study based on the students interaction and teaching commitment were approved according to the statements made by Allitt (2005). According to his statement, as a teacher instructor is to cause students to learn thinks they do not know yet, and hence students probably prefer classes that do not terrify them even if they feel a little anxious. In this way, interaction of students and teachers in the classroom is expected to be high in a peaceful environment, where there is an advantage to allow students to focus on the subject. It was seen from the survey results that this situation was already achieved in our course.
The student feedback from this survey was also illuminating about the course. The questions in the survey seemed particularly relevant to this study. All of the data proved the appropriateness and effectiveness of student feedback. It could be stated that students who really want to learn technical drawing can learn engineering drawing successfully only if they notice that they are inclined to perform the technical drawing. In this context, the appropriate strategies in instruction and right attitude are very important factors as reinforcing learning. 3.3. Student Satisfaction on Professionalism
The observations of student outcomes and satisfaction regarding to the professionalism (Table 2c and Figure 2c) indicated that carefully and precisely wording of questions by the instructor is an important factor in learning drawing based upon the understanding of the considered issues from the student’s point of view. In this manner, all the questions of students should be worded very carefully by the instructor during lecturing and practising in the class. As mentioned by URL 6, asking and answering questions, a form of active learning and a form of assessment, is an excellent teaching tool, the instructor should be more attentive for description of an idea or concept when answering questions and the answer may contain specific instructions about the related topic if necessary. Answering the questions of the students is the mirror image of the instructor’s side based on the asking questions to the students while lecturing and via the exams. In this respect, the instructor should be in a cautious attitude when preparing the exam questions.
The survey results emerged that this prediction was performed substantially by either the instructor of the course or the exams.
From the findings, the students mostly thought that the instructor’s style and the competency of syllabus are considered as indicators of professionalism. In this context, the instructor's approach and comprehensible course content was perceived as an indicator of the value of this elective course on technical drawing.
In the opinion of the students, the results also showed that the instructor was not tolerant of alternate views. This may sound interesting but could be understandable situation due to a technical drawing application with certain rules as an engineering activity. Given explanation by Urdarevik (2013) and Khabia and Khabia (2012), the instructor's attitude in this way is quite acceptable because students with less visualization ability find great difficulty in understanding of the subjects relevant to the teachnical drawing. Although the survey results revealed that the students looked for the positive expectations regarding to the instructor’s perception, it is obvious that the instructor might use a little authoritarian way of teaching technical drawing to increase achievement motivation in the class. In this case, intolerant approach to teaching may encourage the students to learn such a difficult and quite complex subjects within the frame of the technical drawing. In this matter, considering the sample students that taken this elective course to learn technical drawing for the first time, their success in the examinations can be considered as a reflection of the authoritative teaching approach.
Table 2a: Satisfaction on preparation and teaching skill
mean First Second Preparation & Teaching Skill
3,74 3,63 3,84 The instructor comes to class well prepared 3,94 3,91 3,97 The instructor appears to be well informed
and up-to-date on the subject matter
4,22 3,95 4,48 The instructor’s presentations are organized 4,07 3,92 4,22 The instructor’s presentation is clear and
audible
4,37 4,13 4,61 The instructor provides a sufficient number of definitions, examples and illustrations to help me understand the concepts
Figure 2a: Satisfaction on preparation and teaching skill. Where the legends f and s represent the opening of the course in the first and second time in two different semesters, numbers from 1 to 5 show the rank of satisfaction (1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree), and letters from A to B indicate the criteria for the students’ satisfaction (A: The instructor comes to class well prepared, B: The instructor appears to be well informed and up-to-date on the subject matter, C: The instructor’s presentations are organized, D: The instructor’s presentation is clear and audible, E: The instructor provides a sufficient number of definitions, examples and illustrations to help me understand the concepts).
Table 2b: Satisfaction on student interaction and teaching commitment mean First Second Student Interaction & Teaching Commitment
4,71 4,68 4,74 The instructor answers questions in a manner that promotes learning
4,57 4,50 4,63 The instructor encourages questions from the students
4,40 4,24 4,56 The instructor appears to know when a student does not understand the material 4,46 4,44 4,47 The instructor inspires me to become
engaged with the subject
4,66 4,64 4,67 The instructor treats all students courteously
Figure 2b: Satisfaction on student interaction and teaching commitment. Where the legends f and s represent the opening of the course in the first and second time in two different semesters, numbers from 1 to 5 show the rank of satisfaction (1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree), and letters from A to B indicate the criteria for the students’ satisfaction (A: The instructor answers questions in a manner that promotes learning, B: The instructor encourages questions from the students, C: The instructor appears to know when a student does not understand the material, D: The instructor inspires me to become engaged with the subject, E: The instructor treats all students courteously).
Table 2c: Satisfaction on professionalism
mean First Second Professionalism
4,03 4,00 4,05 The instructor stimulates intellectual curiosity
4,46 4,43 4,48 The instructor is careful and precise when answering questions
3,61 3,53 3,69 The instructor is tolerant of alternate views 4,20 4,18 4,21 The description of the class in the course
catalog is accurate
4,30 4,20 4,39 The exams are appropriate to the course
Figure 2c: Satisfaction on professionalism. Where the legends f and s represent the opening of the course in the first and second time in two different semesters, numbers from 1 to 5 show the rank of satisfaction (1 is strongly disagree, 5 is strongly agree), and letters from A to B indicate the criteria for the students’ satisfaction (A: The instructor stimulates intellectual curiosity, B: The instructor is careful and precise when answering questions, C: The instructor is tolerant of alternate views, D: The description of the class in the course catalog is accurate, E: The exams are appropriate to the course).
3.4. Teaching Evaluations
In considering the teaching evaluations, students were also asked to evaluate the instructor and the course in general, and to rank these on a scale of 1 (Unsatisfactory) to 5 (Excellent). This results are presented in Table 3. It is quite evident that the students of this elective course in the first semester had a different instructional experience than those in the second semester. As previously described, this was a reasonable condition that mainly originated from such an elective course opened for the first time in the university. According to the findings, overall rating in the first and second semesters were 3,28 and 3,53 for the instructor and were 3,83 and 3,95 for the course, respectively. The survey results revealed that although the students satisfied with the instructor and the course, satisfaction value on the course was a little on the high side, whereas the overall class rating on the instructor was a little higher than the average of 3,00 points.
Table 3: Teaching evaluations course-attempted
mean First Second Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Criteria 4,07 3,91 4,22 Preparation & Teaching Skill
4,56 4,50 4,61 Student Interaction & Teaching Commitment 4,12 4,07 4,16 Professionalism
4,25 4,16 4,33 overall mean
3,41 3,28 3,53 Overall rating of the instructor 3,89 3,83 3,95 Overall rating of the course
The results clearly showed that “student interaction and teaching commitment” was the most important issue to learn technical drawing effectively even though an elective course (Table 3). Although it is undeniable that both “professionalism” and “preparation and teaching skill” are very important, theese aspects came after the “student interaction and teaching commitment” in the recent survey.
According to the results, student feedback is valuable for identifying the teaching phenomenon and the instructional improvement. It has been found in this study that both student outcomes and satisfaction were consistent with each other.
In conlusion, this research has taught us a lot about the course from the student’s point of view, and showed a way for things to do in the future.
References
Abiwu, N. (2001). Strategies to improve the performance of students in technical/engineering drawing: a case study conducted in Tamale Polytechnic. The Master Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.
Allitt, P. (2005). I'm the Teacher, You're the Student: A Semester in the University Classroom. University of Pennsylvania Press, 244 pp.
Chambers, J. M., Cleveland, W. S., Kleiner, B., Tukey, P. A. (1983). Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
European Commission (2009). ECTS User’s Guide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 60 pp.
Eurydice Network (2010). Focus on Higher Education in Europe 2010: The Impact of the Bologna Process
(http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/ thematic_reports/122en.pdf)
Khabia, S, Khabia, D. (2012). Engineering drawing teaching made easy by use of latest educational technology. Proceedings: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education (ICTEE),
3-5 January 2012, Amrita University, Kerala, India
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/icp.jsp?arnumber=6208635)
Lille, H. (2013). Engineering drawing as a visual channel in communication medium. Agronomy Research, 11 (1): 249–254.
Rivera, J. C., McAlister, M. K., Rice, M. L. (2002). A Comparison of Student Outcomes & Satisfaction Between Traditional & Web Based Course Offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5 (3), Fall 2002 (http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/rivera53.html)
Sidelinger, R.J., McCroskey, J.C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14 (1): 1-10, Winter 1997.
Urdarevik, S. (2013). Using models to tech and learn engineering. Proceedings: 2013 ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda Conference, 3-4 June 2013, Grand Rapids, USA (http://rube.asq.org/edu/2013/04/continuous- improvement/2013-asq-stem-agenda-conference-breakout-sessions-listing-of-papers.pdf). URL 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_drawing (accessible by October 2014) URL 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_drawing (accessible by October 2014) URL 3: http://ec.europa.eu/education/tools/ects_en.htm (accessible by October 2014) URL 4: http://www.unitedprofessorsofmarin.org/PDF/Forms/
STEVCOMMED[F%207.5].pdf (accessible by October 2014)
URL 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart (accessible by October 2014) URL 6: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/services/instruction/tips/ic/ic_ask.html
