Reductive Sketching to Synergize

Authentic Problem Solving in Engineering

Leonhard E. Bernold
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile
Leonhard.Bernold@usm.cl

Luis Felipe Gonzalez Bhme

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile
luisfelipe.gonzalez@usm.cl

Sandro Maino
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria, Valparaiso, Chile
sandro.maino@usm.cl

Abstract: As the engineering faculty is encouraged to adopt authentic problem

based teaching the need for students to re-tool their learning skills is increasing.
One such skill is modelling the real world in a way that principles of math and
physics can be utilized. This paper addresses two issues related to sketching for
learning. The first section presents an iterative procedure to verify problem
understanding using abstractive visualization. Building on the rich heritage of
hand-drawing in architectural design and sketch-based reasoning, the text offers
a reductive process to elicit a model as a basis for understanding the problem.
The second part presents the result of an investigation to test the hypothesis that
engineering students consider sketching an important skill to support their
learning. Based on the positive first results, the design of a scaffolded approach
to introduce engineering sketching as a critical learning and problem solving skill
is underway.

Introduction and background

Every teacher in engineering has surely experienced the rush of student engaged in a
problem-solving exercise to immediately recommend the solution before understanding all
the relevant issues related to the problem. This well-known phenomenon led Albert Einstein
to summarize that If I had an hour to solve a problem I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about
the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.
Much has been written about strategies to solve problems in science but Plyas (1946) four
principles are still providing the core elements: 1) Understand the problem, 2) devise a plan
of the solution, 3) carry out the plan and check each step, and 4) look back to examine the
solution obtained. This, we may say, is the problem-focused strategy that is generally
adopted by scientists as opposed to the solution-focused strategy used by architects and
designers to solve problems. According to Lawson (1979), scientists usually focus their
attention on discovering the rules that govern the problem at hand, whereas architects learn
about the nature of the problem as a result of trying out solutions, i.e., conjectured solutions
as argued by Cross (1982). To Plya (1946), one of the basic methods for understanding
any problem, not only of geometry, is to draw a figure, that is, to try to find some lucid
geometrical representation for the problem at hand. This task is already an important step
toward the solution.
Wankat and Oreovicz (1993) in their book, Teaching Engineering, pointed to the importance
of the first step in problem solving, students need to practice defining problems and
drawing sketches.(this) is often given very little attention by novices. They need to list the
knowns and the unknowns, draw a figure, and perhaps draw an abstract figure which shows
1

the fundamental relationships (remember that most people prefer visual learning). The
figures are critical since an incorrect figure almost guarantees an incorrect solution. During
their continued research on authentic problem solving applying model elicitation techniques,
Diefes-Dux and Salim (2012) found that: As such, it became clear that students do not have
an inherent ability to formulate problems. Thus, research on enhancing the formulation of
the different natures of problems has become of great interest (Jonassen 2010).

Internal and external modeling

Kenneth Craik (1943) was one of the first who suggested that humans create a cognitive
structure, the so called mental model of the world that is available for reasoning, decision
making, problem solving or in predicting the future. Later, Johnson-Laird (1983) considered
mental models constantly under construction in a persons working memory. New concepts
in education, founded on constructivist principles, emphasize the importance of a problem as
the start of the active learning process guided by the teacher. More specifically, Modelbased-Learning (MbL) has become of great interest (Coll, France, and Taylor 2005):
learning emerges from an interaction between learners experiences and ideas, which
could be externalized and communicated to others through the construction of artifacts (e.g.,
models). External representations of internal models help us to think and communicate
complex thoughts. Many writers create drawings and even paintings of scenes before
writing fictional books or educational textbooks. Of great importance is the saliency of the
problem that has to be modeled with an emphasis on authenticity and relevance to the
students experience. Sachse, Hacker, and Leinert (2004) particularly emphasized the value
of sketching in that it: transfers a mental problem solution into a physical object, which the
problem-solver may process as the subject of a critical examination, i.e. of his or her
metacognitive reflection. The flexibility of sketching to draw 1-, 2- or 3-d drawings, graphs
and diagrams, mathematical symbols, expressions, etc. makes it an inherently effective tool
to support the students to switch from one model to another (Louca and Zacharias 2012)
representing their internal mental models externally for reflection and scrutiny by others.

Interactive construction of problem understanding

The creation and improvement of mental models is considered to be an iterative process. Liu
and Stasko (2010) propose the concept that: internalization involves the encoding of
information abstracted from perception in long-term memory. Since it often does not make
sense to assume independent existence of visualizations and their underlying data,
information about the data, especially at schematic and semantic levels, may be preserved
at the same time.
External World

Brain
Mental Model (MM) of
Problem

Authentic
Problem

First Abstraction
Augmentation of MM 1 Improvement

Discern

Augmentation of MM n

Discrepancy 1
Representation n
Improvement

Understanding
Representation 1 of Problem

External Model (EM)

Representation of MM

Figure 1: Iterative process of forming understanding of an authentic engineering problem

2

Figure 1 presents a concept to represent the interactive process of abstracting and

augmenting the mental model of a real world problem. As depicted, the improvement of the
mental model of a problem depends on recognizing a discrepancy between an external
representation of the mental model and the actual problem. This concept is based on
scientific methods to elicit the mental process when working on a problem. For example, the
think-aloud protocol asks a problem solver to express in words his or her thinking providing
an idea about the thinking process that leads to an action (Ericsson and Simon 1993). It is
apparent that the iterative cycles only end when the problem is understood. But how do we
know that we understand?
While verbal expressions have been found useful to capture the mental model, sketching
using the mechanical and sensory systems of arm and eye, is considered another effective
method to represent internal models. As represented in Figure 1, being able to compare an
external representation with the real world provides the opportunity to recognize
discrepancies as a basis for augmenting the mental model. In fact, Briggs and Bodner
(2005) argued that the active representation and construction of mental models supplies
students with a tool of thinking for model-based reasoning.

Methods of abstraction to foster problem understanding

A core constructivist principle states that gaining understanding is a process that requires the
active involvement of the learner. This process is thought to require an iterative interaction
between mental and external models with the goal to eliminate discrepancies between the
models and the real world problem in such a way that existing knowledge can be employed
to develop potential solutions to the problem. This chapter presents three methods that
provide unique opportunities to foster this process through an abstraction process that allows
the learner to efficiently find the key issues related to a problem while eliminating distracting
information.

Abstraction in design
In architecture as in art, every examination of a physical entity or space by means of
sketching its visible features is led by a pressing need to capture and reproduce its form, its
major divisions (or constituent parts), function (or purpose), and the way of functioning. As
with sketching the human figure, to draw a balanced combination of its appearance and the
functional virtues is the goal of the artist. Zaidenberg (1945) brakes the study of the drawing
of the human figure down into four main topics: (i) The general human form, which comprises
learning the generalizations to be made about structure and movement of the human body;
(ii) how to see the human form, which demands the acquisition of a method for looking at it
while simultaneously applying a filter to the artists vision that should result in a completely
understood and analyzed concept (or idea) of what is seen; (iii) what to say about the
human form, which involves learning how to control the contributing personal facets which
color the understood concept of what is seen; and (iv) the techniques that is, the personal
style of applying the above three topics which may include speed, pressure and lengths of
lines, among others.
Unlike the propositional nature of most design drawings and artistic creations, to Zaidenberg
(1945) the inquisitive nature of human figure drawings does not need inspiration or a vision
(used in the sense of an epiphany) but rather a method of intelligent elimination of all that is
not pertinent to what the artist has to say about the figure he or she sees. According to
Gnshirt (2007), the sketch is originally nothing other than an abstracted and fixed gesture,
wherein both temporal and spatial dimensions of some motion sequence have been
translated into points, lines, and surfaces. Consistently, Zaidenberg (1945) indicates that
portraying a human model requires the artist to first analyze the story behind the pose
assumed by the model in order to capture the action of the intention of the assumed pose.
3

Thus, an analysis of the major gestures involved in assuming the pose must be made and
then a mental conclusion must be translated into a sketch on the paper. This can be seen as
a kind of forensic or investigative task by means of which a previous event or a series of
events must be reconstructed in order to fully understand the current situation. This forensiclike analysis can likewise be found at the initial stage of building surveying when the surveyor
first produces a mental map (sometimes referred to as perceptual layout in architectural
jargon) of the floor plan which will gradually be enriched with further details such as scale,
geometric dimensions, materials, etc. Relevant research in digital building surveying and
planning (Donath et al., 2003, Donath and Thurow, 2007, Donath et al., 2008) use on-site
freehand sketching as a basis for the development of computer-assisted topologicalgeometrical models. In archaeological findings and historic building conservation, when there
is not much left to see, sketching provides a useful method for figuring out by inference and
deduction the original form, internal configuration, function, construction procedures or
applied materials.
Designers produce many different kinds of drawings for several different purposes. Lawson
(2004) distinguishes at least eight which are often mixed together: (1) presentation drawings,
(2) instruction drawings, (3) consultation drawings, (4) experiential drawings, (5) diagrams,
(6) fabulous drawings, (7) proposition drawings, and (8) calculation drawings. Diagrams,
proposition and calculation drawings are sketches architects and designers usually make in
the early stages of the design process to collect client requirements and to explore the
design space. Goldschmidt (1991) describes these kinds of drawings together as study
sketches. By this means, design propositions and constraints take form and start interacting
with each other as ad hoc design entities at different levels of abstraction in the designers
representational space. A few lines on paper may represent anything from an entire building
to the circulation needs for a community, as Crowe and Laseau (2012) notice. Do and Gross
(2001) corroborate such multi-level abstraction capacity of architectural diagrams compared
to other domains like electronics. The sketch-based reasoning process itself is described by
many (Schn, 1983, Goldschmidt, 2003, Lawson, 2004) as a dialog sustained between the
designer and the sketch, or in other words, the designers mental model and its
representation.
In his outstanding work, Laseau (2001) describes three sketch-based abstraction methods:
(a) by distillation, suggesting to draw only that part from the whole that is subject to
observation; (b) by reduction, which suggests to distinguish groups of parts from the whole,
for instance, by cross-hatching or shading; (c) by extraction, which is to emphasis (for
instance, by thicker lines or colored surfaces) a part of the whole while remaining within the
context of its system; and (d) by comparison, which suggests to diagram different systems in
the same graphic language in order to compare structural rather than superficial
characteristics of different systems.

Reductive visual abstraction

Studying the performance or the collapse of a system presented visually, such as the
collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, can be compared to a forensic investigation where
visual clues can provide the necessary data to infer cause-and-effect relationship. Based on
constructivist principles, this kind of investigation requires the existence of a mental model
that can be drawn and build upon. In other words, a child who has never learned platetectonic and volcanism will not be able to explain the why so many volcanos exist in Chile.
However it was found that a sketching assignment is extremely effective in substantiating or
verifying if a student understands new material (Sepasgozar and Bernold, 2012, Siew and
Bernold, 2012). Reductive abstraction may offer an excellent venue to help students to
actively create a deeply anchored mental model in a formative process. Figure 2cpresents
an example of an abstraction process the leads the students step-by-step from a complex
real-world problem to a representative model that is reduced to its most relevant elements.

Due to space limitations, on the initial but most critical visual of the accident is being
presented in Figure 2 a). It depicts a busy scene that includes two telescoping-boom cranes,
a leaning observation tower sustained by two inclined hoist lines from the cranes. A small
building and telephone/power cables suspended from a series poles surround the leaning
tower.

B
A

Crane 1
Crane 2

a) Initial Phase of Crane Collapse

b) Reduction and Cut-Away

C
c) Substitution and Final Inference

Figure 2: Process of visual abstraction to identify the cause of a crane collapse

To a student of crane technology the picture should raise some immediate concerns as s/he
was lectured that hoist lines need to be vertical as cranes are designed and certified for
vertical lifting conditions only. Alas, while not all non-vertical line conditions lead to a
catastrophic failure the presented case ends with two large truck-cranes laying on the
ground. However, Figure 2 a) does not provide any further indication about the cause that
could be apparent to anybody but the most experienced crane-engineer. In fact, the authors
have found that engineering students have great difficulty to solve the the authentic cranecollapse problem in a structured manner.
The presented reductive abstraction methodology begins in Figure 2 b) by eliminating all the
components in the environment clearly not related to the accident. In a second step, also
shown Figure 2 b), elements that obstruct the view of the critical objects, cranes and tower,
are cut away. The method of artificially removing visual obstacles to see the insides of an
object was so expertly used by Leonardo da Vinci. As shown, the small one-story shack has
been replaced with a virtual view of the tower base as a perspective extension of the four
legs and cross-bracing. In addition, the wooden pole supporting two (phone) lines was
deleted and the section crossing the crane boom closed with a virtual section. The final
phase of the abstraction process consists of replacing structurally sound elements with
symbols. Thus, the intact section of the tower has been replaced with a box, crane booms
with solid lines, the pins at the end of the boom with circles, and the cable ropes with dotted
lines. What is left are the two crane boom heads with two headache-balls, A + B, and two
inclined hoist lines. The imminent question is how did A not suspend vertically from the
boom head? According to the second Newton Law (object stays at rest unless a force acts
on it) the steel ball stayed in place while the boom head must have accelerated to the right in
a quick motion. What could have caused that dynamic force pulling sideways on the head of
the boom of crane 2 and, to a lesser extent, on crane 1? As the center of gravity (crossed
circle) has moved forward between the two cranes, a force lateral to the motion plane must
have been produced The only way such a rapid force can be formed is by the failure of the
front leg C the tower is resting on. Due to the vector of the hoist line to A we can infer that
the leg closest to the viewer broke. Of course, the next probing question would be: How can
such a strong piece of steel suddenly fail?
The first half of the paper discussed theoretical basis for extending the use of engineering
sketching into the realm of teaching and learning, specifically as a tool to model an authentic
problem. The second section will investigate the question about the disposition of students
towards hand sketching, an art that got lost with the rise of computers. Underlying this is the
5

hypothesis that todays students perceive this simple but universal engineering language as
a powerful tool.

Survey of students disposition towards sketching as a study skill

Before experimenting with students to test the effectiveness of sketching in helping this
process the authors decided to measure the readiness or, according to Blooms second
taxonomy (1956), the affective responses from the students that could be expected. In
particular, it would important to know how they would value being able to sketch and to map
knowledge. At the same time, a good understanding of their present use of other learning
tools is necessary. For this purpose, several questions in a questionnaire survey of 113
engineering students at the University Tecnica Federico Santa Maria (UTFSM) in parallel
classes of Physics 110 included related to self-assessment of their study skills and the
competencies of a successful student (e.g., sketching and mind-mapping). The students
were asked to respond to questions using a four level Likert schema: 1= Highly Disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Highly Agree, 0 = I Dont Know/Does not Apply.
Table 1 presents the summary statistics of mean and standard deviation (STDEV) for
selected questions related to active learning, problem based teaching and sketching. It is
interesting to understanding that the Mean of 3.49 for question Q 6.3 was the highest for all
followed by Q 6.12. Most surprising was the high Mean of 3.23 for Q 6.14 when contrasted
with the 1.95 of question Q 4.6. While the responses relative to what a successful student is
able to do in terms of metacognition (Q 6.3), use of study skills (Q 6.12), and sketching/mindmapping (Q 6.14) the very low Mean of 1.95 for Q 4.6 seems to indicate that the students
themselves do not apply the learning methods alluded to.
Table 2: Basic statistics of responses to selected questions
Q#
1.4
3.3
3.9

Statement
My study skills are excellent
The teacher does not spoon-feed the students rather leads us to find the
answers to problems
The teacher uses a lot of pictures, videos and other visualization techniques

3.13 The teacher uses real-world problems to explain the relevance of the topic
4.6
4.9
4.10
4.12
6.3
6.12
6.14
7.2

As a student I question, underline, summarize, cross-reference when

reading the lecture material
As a student I find it easier to comprehend new material when it is linked to
real-world problems
As a student I benefit more from classes where the teacher coaches me to
work on my study skills
As a student I find it very difficult deciding what is most critical in a class text
I think that a professional and SUCCESSFUL student is able to evaluate
and improve his/her own study performance
I think that a professional and SUCCESSFUL student uses effective study
skills appropriate for the different tasks (assignments, projects, journal)
I think that a professional and SUCCESSFUL student models a problem
using sketching or mind-mapping
My effort as a student (for this class) is excellent

Subject

Likert (1-4)
Mean STDEV

Self-Assessment

2.23

0.79

Active Learning

3.42

0.76

Visualization
Problem Based
Teaching
Visualization/
Sketching
Problem Based
Learning

2.75

0.89

3.08

0.99

1.95

0.99

3.07

0.89

Study Skills

3.02

0.86

Abstraction

2.24

0.91

Study Skills

3.49

0.61

Study Skills

3.46

0.65

Sketching

3.23

0.79

Self-Assessment

2.52

0.76

The low responses to the all-encompassing self-assessments of Q 1.4 and Q 7.2 in

combination with the Mean of 1.95 for Q 4.6 may, however, indicate that the students are
simply not aware of formal study methods although the introduction to the survey included
short descriptions of key concepts such as SQR4, learning preferences and study skills. To
study possible relations between Q 6.14 (sketching and mind-mapping) and other questions
multi variable regression analysis with Excel was executed. The objective was to identify
questions/variables with p-values smaller than 0.05 which is accepted as representing a
sufficiently strong relationship.

Regression Statistics
0.264692
0.070062
-0.04153
0.806921
113
Coefficients
Intercept
Q 1.4
Q 3.3
Q 3.9
Q 3.13
Q 4.6
Q 4.9
Q 4.10
Q 4.12
Q 6.3
Q 7.2

2.192
-0.03313
0.0364
-0.0709
0.0154
0.0525
0.0224
0.1828
0.0727
0.0262
0.0533

Standard
Error
0.7222
0.1029
0.1127
0.1071
0.1015
0.0823
0.0942
0.1005
0.0890
0.1342
0.1157

t Stat

P-value

3.0352
-0.3217
0.3232
-0.6618
0.1518
0.6383
0.2385
1.8183
0.8171
0.1953
0.4606

0.0030
0.7483
0.7471
0.5095
0.8795
0.5246
0.8119
0.0720
0.4157
0.8455
0.6460

Residuals

Multiple R
R2
Adjusted R2
Std. Error
Observations

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0

Residual plot for Q 3.4

Figure 3: Result of a multi-variable regression analysis for Q 6.14 (Value of Sketching and
Mind Mapping)
The extremely low R2 value of 7% indicating that the produced model represents the data
poorly a fact that is confirmed by one representative plot of residuals for Q 3.4. Surprisingly,
all the coefficients are very small and, consequently, all the p-values are above 0.05 some of
them with a wide margin.

Results
The survey was designed to inquire if engineering students at UTFSM will value sketching as
a tool that would enhance their active learning within a problem-based teaching environment.
Reviewing the results of the data analysis paints three different pictures. At first we can
affirm that the queried engineering students consider sketching and mind mapping as being
an important skill of a successful student. The same holds true for metacognitive capabilities
and study skills. On the other hand, they indicate that they themselves dont use sketching
and note taking tools while reading despite the fact that a significant number of students
assert that they have difficulties identifying the core messages. It is very reasonable to
believe that this is the result of unawareness. This scenario is supported by the low
valuation of their own study skills which stays in stark contrast to their perceptions of the
study skills exhibited by a professional and successful student. Finally, the multi-variable
regression analysis showed no correlations between the students valuation of sketching and
mind-mapping and other factors related problem-based learning.

Discussion and conclusion

Engineering students who want to become successful problem-based learners require a skill
set that is significantly different from the passive copying of lectures and solving of large
numbers of similar practice or homework problems. The list of needed competencies
encompass metacognition, reading to understand, self-evaluation, etc. but most importantly
the ability to model real-world problems before applying scientific principles. However,
several research efforts have demonstrated that engineering students lack the skills
necessary to accomplish the latter thus they are unable to develop an accurate mental model
of the problem as a basis for developing solutions. This paper argues that the established
culture of hand-sketching can be effectively used to help students learn new knowledge
and understand the essence of a real world problem. Mapping models by hand provides
7

external representations of the internal model in a visual format. Utilizing the power of the
brain to analyze visual images, it allows for an effective means for verification and
augmentation in iterative cycles.
The concept of reductive abstraction has an established theoretical basis in architecture
containing generalizable structures containing invaluable methodologies to use the visual
processing power of the human mind. The paper presents an application of the concept to a
forensic investigation of a crane accident from photographs. Reductive abstraction was used
to eliminate the unrelated environment and the methodical replacement of the complexity
with simple lines and symbols familiar to an engineering students having taken statics.
The final section of the paper offers the outcome of a survey to test if engineering students in
a prominent Chilean engineering university would consider the introduction of sketching an
important study skill. Based on the survey results, they value highly competencies related to
sketching, mind-mapping and study skills. On the other hand, the data also shows, that at
present only very few of them are actually utilizing such learning tools. Thus, while the
students acknowledge the positive effect authentic problem-based learning as well as the
high value of the skills needed to be successful in a learner-centered education environment,
their present tool-belt of learning competencies is rather bare.
Based on the result of the presented work, the future effort will focus on scaffolding
strategies for advancing sketching as an effective tool to assist students in learning and
understanding. A second project will design procedures to scientifically test the
effectiveness of reductive sketching in creating accurate mental models of various types of
engineering and architectural type problems.

References
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals,
Handbook I, Cognitive Domain, Longmans Green, New York; Toronto.
Coll, R. K., France, N. & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education:
implications from research. Int. J. Sci. Edu., 27(2), 183-198.
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.
Diefes-Dux, H. A. & Salim, A. (2012). Transforming the First-Year engineering experience through
authentic problem-solving: Taking a modeling perspective. Procedia Social Behav. Sci. 56, 314
332.
Do, E. Y.-L. & Gross, M. D. (2001). Thinking with diagrams in architectural design. In: Blackwell, A. F.
(ed.) Artificial Intelligence Review 15. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Donath, D., Braunes, J., Fehlhaber, D. & Tauscher, H. (2008). Sketch-based building information
capture for cost and risk assessment in the early stages of planning in existing built contexts. In:
Muylle, M. (ed.) eCAADe 26. Antwerpen, Belgium: Artesis University College of Antwerp.
Donath, D., Petzold, F., Thurow, T. & Weferling, U. (2003). Freak Consistent surveying and
documentation systems as a planning basis for large-scale historic buildings. In: Altan, O. (ed.)
XIX CIPA Symposium. Antalya, Turkey: Technical University of Istanbul
Donath, D. & Thurow, T. (2007). Integrated architectural surveying and planning: Methods and tools
for recording and adjusting building survey data. Automation in Construction, 16, 19-27.
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press, 1993.
Gnshirt, C. 2007. Werkzeuge fr Ideen: Einfhrung ins Architektonische Entwerfen, Berlin,
Deutschland, Birkhuser Verlag AG.
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues, 19(1), 72-88.
Hsi, S., Linn M.C. and Bell, J.E. (1997). The Role of Spatial Reasoning in Engineering and the Design
of Spatial Instruction. J. Eng. Edu., 86(2), 151158.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving
Learning Environments, Routledge.
Laseau, P. (2001). Graphic thinking for architects & designers, New York, USA, John Wiley & Sons.
Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know, London, UK, Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1), pp.59-68

Lesh, R. & Doerr, H.M. (2003). Chapter 1: Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on
mathematics teaching, learning, and problem-solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond
Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning,
and Teaching (3-34). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Liu, Z. and Stasko, J.T. (2010). Mental Models, Visual Reasoning and Interaction in Information
Visualization: A Top-down Perspective Visualization and Computer Graphics. IEEE Trans. Visual.,
16 (6).
Louca, L. T. and Zacharias, Z.C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive,
metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471
492.
Polya, G. (1946). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, USA, Princeton
Univ. Press
Raine, D. and Symons, S. (2012). Problem-based learning: undergraduate physics by research.
Contemp. Phys., 53(1), 3951.
Sachse, P., Hacker, W. and Leinert, S. (2004). External ThoughtDoes Sketching Assist Problem
Analysis? App. Cog. Psych., 18, 415425.
Schn, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, USA, Basic Books.
Sepasgozar, S. M. and Bernold, L. E. (2012). Engineering Sketching A Valuable Teaching Tool in
Construction, Austral. J. of Const. Eco. Build. Conf. Series, 1(1), 62-72. (http://goo.gl/TBejOs)
Shariq, S. Z. (1999). How does knowledge transform as it is transferred? Speculations on the
possibility of a cognitive theory of knowledge-spaces. J. Knowledge Mngmt., Vol. 3 (4), 243 251.
Siew, R. and Bernold, L.E., (2012). The Use of Engineering Sketching and Journaling to Foster Deep
Understanding of Construction: An Exploratory Study, Austral. J. Constr. Eco. Build. Conf. Series,
1(1), 31-46. (http://goo.gl/UzmJlo)
Wankat, P. C. and F. S. Oreovicz, Teaching Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993. Out of print.
Available free at <http://unitflops.ecn.purdue.edu/ChE/News/Book/>.
Ware, C. (2004). Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Zaidenberg, A. (1945). Drawing the human figure. New York, USA, Crown Publishers.
Copyright 2015 Authors names: The authors assign to the REES organisers and educational non-profit institutions a nonexclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and
this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to REES to publish this document in full
on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors), on portable media and in printed form within the REES 2015 conference
proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.