Introducing pre-training workshop sessions to enhance learning in multidisciplinary environments: a case study in computer-aided engineering and design

Figures & data

Figure 1. An overview course project: an excavator and its composing parts.

A photo of an excavator and its composing components used as a CAD course project.

Figure 2. Design research methodology.

A flow chart with four blocks showing the phases in the design research methodology and their outcomes.

Figure 3. Idea-board outcome from the teacher brainstorming session.

A photo of a whiteboard with two A3 paper sheets attached to it. Several post-it notes were attached to the sheets used to visualize the outcome of a brainstorming session.

Figure 4. Workshop advanced surfaces.

A flow chart with three blocks. The first block shows 3D examples of a pump, a propeller, and a turbine blade used as an active learning activity in the workshop. The second block shows two snapshots of the video demonstrations in the CAD tool. The third block shows a 3D model of an airplane wing-to-fuselage connection and a computer mouse used for computer exercises in the workshop.

Figure 5. Workshop geometry assurance.

A flow chart with four blocks. The first block shows interactive learning activities. The second block shows snapshots of the software demonstrations in the CAT tool. The third block shows the computer exercises on the rear lamp of a car. The fourth block shows the active learning questions designed around the computer exercise.

Figure 6. Participant evaluation of the workshop, 1-strongly agree to 5-strongly disagree. (a) Advanced surfaces workshop. (b) Geometry assurance workshop.

(a) A bar chart with 5 bars for each student feedback question. Each bar has 5 colors showing the majority percentage of agreement and minor disagreement with the presented questions in the advanced surfaces workshop. (b) A bar chart with 5 bars for each student feedback question. Each bar has 5 colors showing the majority percentage of agreement and minor disagreement with the presented questions in the geometry assurance workshop.

Figure 7. Teacher evaluation of the impact of the workshops. (a) Advanced surfaces workshop. (b) Geometry assurance workshop. (c) Workshops overall impact.

(a) A pie chart with two sections showing the considerably increased performance of the students on the advanced surfaces task compared to the previous years from the teachers’ perspective. (b) A pie chart with three sections showing the similar or minor increased performance of the students on the geometry assurance task compared to the previous years from the teachers’ perspective. (c) A pie chart with two sections showing major teacher agreement on the positive impact of the workshop on the performance of the students compared to the previous years as an outcome of the introduced workshops.

Table 1. Summary of the workshop impact results.

Workshop	Advanced surfaces	Geometry assurance
Attendance
Participants (P)	62	47
Non-participants (NP)	24	39
P/Total number of students (S = 86) ratio (%)	72.1	54.6
Revisions
Revisions (R) (From 86 students)	24	27
R/S ratio (%)	27.9	31.4
No-revisions (NR) (From 86 students)	62	59
NR/S ratio (%)	72.1	68.6
Participation and performance
Participants with no revisions (PNR)	45	30
PNR/P ratio (%)	72.6	63.8
Participants with revisions (PR)	17	17
PR/P ratio (%)	27.4	36.2
Non-participants with no revisions (NPNR)	17	29
NPNR/NP ratio (%)	70.1	74.4
Non-participants with revisions (NPR)	7	10
NPR/NP ratio (%)	29.2	25.6

Figure 8. Performance of the students participating in the workshops considering the project grade. (a) Advanced surfaces (AS) workshop. (b) Geometry assurance (GA) workshop.

(a) Two histograms showing higher project grades of the students who participated in the advanced surfaces workshop compared to the non-participating students. (b) Two histograms showing higher project grades of 4 and 5 of the students who participated in the geometry assurance workshop compared to the non-participating students.

Table 2. Summary of final and project grades.

AS workshop	Mean	Standard deviation
Project grades
Participants	4.42	0.85
Non-participants	3.95	0.95
GA workshop
Participants	4.51	0.76
Non-participants	4.05	0.99
Final grades
AS workshop
Participants	4.02	0.61
Non-participants	3.5	0.86
GA workshop
Participants	4.04	0.59
Non-participants	3.71	0.80

Figure 9. Performance of the students participating in the workshops considering the final grade. (a) Advanced surfaces (AS) workshop. (b) Geometry assurance (GA) workshop.

(a) Two histograms showing higher final grades of the students who participated in the advanced surfaces workshop compared to the non-participating students. (b) Two histograms showing higher final grades of 4 and 5 of the students who participated in the geometry assurance workshop compared to the non-participating students.