This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]

On: 16 November 2014, At: 02:20

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Engineering

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

First-year engineering students'

difficulties in visualization and drawing
tasks
a a b
Mikel Garmendia , Jenaro Guisasola & Egoitz Sierra
a
Polytechnical University School, University of the Basque
Country , Donostia, Spain
b
Engineering University School, University of the Basque
Country , Bilbao, Spain
Published online: 22 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Mikel Garmendia , Jenaro Guisasola & Egoitz Sierra (2007) First-year
engineering students' difficulties in visualization and drawing tasks, European Journal of
Engineering Education, 32:3, 315-323, DOI: 10.1080/03043790701276874

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790701276874

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014
 European Journal of Engineering Education
Vol. 32, No. 3, June 2007, 315–323

First-year engineering students’ difficulties in visualization

and drawing tasks
MIKEL GARMENDIA*†, JENARO GUISASOLA† and EGOITZ SIERRA‡
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

†Polytechnical University School, University of the Basque Country, Donostia, Spain

‡Engineering University School, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain

(Received 7 July 2006; in final form 19 December 2006)

Visualizing parts, meaning interpreting the views of an object which has been represented in a draw-
ing, is a fundamental skill in engineering. However, learning deficiencies and difficulties have been
observed among engineering undergraduates, and there is a high failure rate in drawing courses. In
order to determine the origin of these deficiencies, a qualitative design has been developed based on
personal interviews. A group of students was interviewed to analyse the solution process they applied
to three visualization problems with increasing difficulty. The steps they took were structured and
categorized along with the difficulties and deficiencies which were detected. Most of the students
affirmed that they did not possess methodology to solve these problems and relied on trial and error
and intuition. The results seem to indicate that there are specific difficulties and that it is possible to
define a set of skills which guide students through the process of visualizing parts.

Keywords: Visualization; Deficiencies; Problem solving

1. Introduction

Part visualization is understood to be the skill to study the views of an object and to form a
mental image of it, meaning, to visualize its three-dimensional shape (Giesecke et al. 2001).
When reading the drawing, the shape of the object is unknown at the start and the student
progresses until each detail of this shape is known. A drawing is read by visualizing the sets
or the details one by one using the multiview projection representation, orienting and relating
them to each other until finally the complete object can be interpreted (French 1947).
Expressed in another way, visualization is mental comprehension of visual information.
The engineer must have the skills to read and write the language of the drawing. The need to
learn how to read a drawing is absolute, because all people related with the technical industry
must be capable of reading or interpreting a drawing without hesitations (French 1947).
Visualization is important not only in a professional engineering practice but also in terms
of teaching Graphic Expression. If a student is not capable of visualizing, they are going to find
it difficult to follow and understand the rest of the content in the course. For engineering and

*Corresponding author. E.U. Politécnica de Donostia-San Sebastián, Plaza Europa 1, 20018 DONOSTIA-SAN
SEBASTIÁN, Spain. Email: mikel.garmendia@ehu.es

European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2007 SEFI
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/03043790701276874
 316 M. Garmendia et al.

technology students, visualization skills can be very important for understanding fundamental
concepts of technical graphics (Bertoline et al. 1997, Ferguson 1992).
However, our teaching experience and the failure rate in evaluation results tell us that there
are serious learning difficulties among engineering students. Our Engineering School has a
high failure rate of around 50% in first-year Engineering Graphics courses.
Furthermore, students who demonstrate great intellectual capacity in other knowledge areas
present problems in understanding the mechanisms which relate the representation of three-
dimensional objects with the reality of these objects (Pérez Carrión and Serrano, 1998). We also
find students who, despite having studied drawing in secondary school, have not developed
their spatial ability sufficiently and they have serious difficulties with mentally manipulatibng
figures in space (Navarro 2004). This failure ties in with results from other international studies
(McKim 1980, Potter and Merwe 2003, Potter et al. 2006).
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

Luzzader and Duff (1986) show that most students following elemental graphics courses
find it very difficult to visualize an object from two or more views and they lack procedures
to analyse complex shapes. In the same respect, López and Anido (2004) indicate that in the
first year of an engineering degree, students present difficulties due to a lack of training or
deficient training, such as difficulties in bi-directional handling of the 2D and 3D relationship,
and between the plane and the ordinary space, or lack of knowledge and ability to handle
representation systems.
One possible factor can relate to different aspects which, in a wider form, are known
as spatial visualization. This visualization is related to the ability to imagine and sensorial
perception which is used functionally on a practical, analytic and creative level (Sternberg et al.
2000). For this reason, many teachers think that analysis of shapes from two or more views,
which are based on visualization processes and mental imagination, have a high idiosyncratic
component: there are people who can visualize and others who cannot. In this respect, it is
not clear where the specific difficulties lie and which procedures should be taught.
However, the belief that visualizing objects is a systematic process which can be taught and
learnt by all engineering students who can then apply them to different problems and situations
is supported by research in Technology Teaching (Cajas 2002). Nowadays, the basic concepts
and skills have been identified for satisfactory teaching–learning about Technology (Interna-
tional Technology Education Association 2000). There is wide consensus when considering
that appropriate knowledge of the students’ difficulties in the learning process can help to
identify the procedures which must be explicitly demonstrated and the appropriate teaching
sequence (Middleton 2005).
This article aims to identify the specific difficulties experienced by students when they
have to deal with object visualization problems in a first-year Engineering technical drawing
course. The questions which we raise in this work are: What are the reasoning processes used
by students when visualizing parts? What are the students’ main difficulties in visualization
processes?
Knowledge of these specific difficulties will help to design teaching sequences which con-
template skills and procedures from part visualization processes and help the students to
overcome these difficulties. In order to try and answer these questions we have produced a
qualitative design which we are will present in the following section.

2. Methodology

In order to detect deficiencies and difficulties in visualization learning, a qualitative study

was run, by designing a semi-structured interview to determine the steps, procedures and
 Visualization and drawing tasks 317

forms of reasoning which the students follow when they have to solve part visualization
problems, and to detect possible conceptual or procedure-based deficiencies in them (White
and Ginstone 1989). This methodology does not allow statistical generalizations to be made
(Cook and Reichardt 1986, Stake 1998), although they can be generalized in the sense that the
information given allows the reader to decide if a case is similar to their own. Kvale (1996)
amplifies the meaning of generality to go beyond the ‘statistical generality’ and include ‘the
analytical generality’. This implicates a reasoned judgement regarding the extend to which the
results of a study can be used as a guide for what is going to occur in other situations, and give
an important role to the reader, who must judge the plausibility of a generalizing statement.
In the interviews, the students were requested to solve three part visualization problems,
analysing the views of the tasks and drawing their solution in perspective. The student must
solve it “out loud”, emphasizing the steps of their consequent reasoning during the solution
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

process. The students should solve three increasingly difficult basic-level visualization prob-
lems for engineering students, with the third one being an open type problem, meaning a
problem for which there is more than one correct solution (see table 1).

Table 1. Statement and solution for the three proposed visualization problems.
 318 M. Garmendia et al.

The interviews were run with 12 students (6 male and 6 female) from a randomly chosen
control group who have passed Engineering Graphics in their first year of industrial engineering
degree. The syllabus of the course covered traditional contents such as the fundaments of
representation systems, descriptive geometry, conventions of engineering drawing, sketching,
reading drawings (parts and machine planes), dimensioning, and solving problems on the
plane. The course is distributed during a semester, involving 60 h of lectures and practical
drawing sessions. However, students, normally, do not have the opportunity to participate
actively and they are limited to taking notes from the teacher’s explanations.
The conversations were recorded and analysed afterwards. In accordance with our hypothe-
sis that part visualization is a systemic process in which experts use procedures and knowledge
from engineering, the interviews with the students were analysed based on detailed narration
(McKernan 1996). This includes comparing the steps which they follow with other sequences
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

which are considered acceptable from the point of view of the discipline or the expert.
The bibliographic review of books dedicated to technical drawing did not find a model which
was clearly structured and developed to solve visualization problems. This led us to consider
other models used in other disciplines which integrate the most relevant contributions from
didactic research (Larkin 1983, Furió et al. 1994, Guisasola et al. 2002, Gil 2003), integrating
visualization’s own concepts, procedures and forms of reasoning in its solution structure. We
have compiled these contributions using the bibliographic review and our teaching experience
and the main characteristics are indicated below:

A. Running in-depth qualitative analysis of the views, considering all the variables, such as
the possibility of breaking down the part into independent geometric volumes, analysing
the shape of the projections, the configuration of the edges (parallelisms), hidden elements,
analysis of corners, etc.
B. Using qualitative analysis, a hypothesis can be made which allows us to focus and guide
problem solving, valuing possible solution strategies. It is a matter of choosing the method
which we consider most suitable from the existing solution methods given the statement’s
characteristics, avoiding pure trial and error or resorting to the operating as thought it was
a “typical” problem.

So, in the bibliographic review some authors propose the method to eliminate volumes
starting from the prism surrounding the part, the composition of solids method (Giesecke
et al. 2001, Luzzader and Duff 1986), or the surface analysis method (Bertoline 1997).

C. Solving the problem, following one of the solution methods and strategies and applying
multiview projection system principles.
D. Graphically representing the result in perspective, valuing the convenience of using help
and reference elements and finally checking that the solution is correct.

Analysis of the interview results was categorized based on this model, firstly, by two of the
work’s authors separately and later the categories were analysed together until a consensus
was reached.

3. Results

Out of the 12 students who were interviewed, 8 solved problem 1 correctly, 7 solved problem 2
correctly and 6 solved problem 3. The results are deficient taking into account the fundamental
level of the problems and that the students had all taken the course.
 Visualization and drawing tasks 319

Below, we will summarize the solution trends which stray from the expert method and
lead to students failing, abandoning task solutions or committing errors during the solution
process.

1. The analysis of the statements is superficial, and they do not consider all the variables
involved.
a. Four of the students do not analyse the volume taken up by the part, or that it is composed
of geometric primitives.
b. Eight do not analyse the shape of the surfaces.
c. The majority (7 of 12) avoid interpreting the hidden lines or postpone their analysis
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

until the end of the solution process.

d. Six of the students follow an analysis sequence which is not recommended starting the
analysis with the top view or with the side view, instead of starting with the main or
front view.
e. Some students (2 of 12) show deficiencies in interpretation and understanding of some
of the views (in general, side or top views), and avoid analysing them.
f. Eight of the students follow a chaotic analysis sequence, starting with the first element
which they spot (in general, any slope line), or the first element they manage to identify,
continuing their analysis with adjoining elements. Most of the students do not establish
an analysis sequence or strategy, such as identifying shapes which are repeated from
one view to another, or shapes which only appear in one view which help to identify
surface types.
2. There is a tendency to always use the same solution method, without considering its possible
suitability or without knowing the different solution methods.
a. Some students (2 of 12) try to solve the problems mechanically by always resorting to
a variant of Eckhart’s method. This method involves drawing the views on the planes
of projection of the perspective, or on the prism which surrounds the part, and tracing
parallels to axes of the system from each corner. In some cases, relating correctly the
intersections of parallels, it is possible to obtain the perspective, without analysing the
different steps of the resolution process.
b. Four students do not consider the possibility of breaking down the part into geometric
primitives (solids analysis method).
c. One student always resorted to the volume elimination method, as he did not know any
other methods.
d. One student resorted to trial and error, by making a hypothesis of possible types of
surfaces which gave a projection, trying out different combinations of solutions until
he found the correct one, which lacked efficiency.
e. Three students attempted to solve the problem by analysing the statement line-by-line
and not by analysing the surfaces.
3. Deficiencies in multiview projection system principles when solving the problems (illus-
trative examples are given in section 3.1 and the number of students presenting them are
given in table 2):
a. Deficiencies in knowledge regarding the different types of surfaces (parallel to the
projection planes, perpendicular to them, and oblique planes), and the characteristics of
the projections which produce them.
b. Incorrectly corresponding two projections between views by not respecting the similar
configuration and number of edges.
c. Defining two projections corresponding to two adjacent areas as the same surface.
 320 M. Garmendia et al.

Table 2. Deficiency categories for the surface analysis method.

Students (N = 12)

Categories for the surface analysis method Yes No

A. Use the method with no errors 4 8

B. Correspond the two projections between views incorrectly as 7 5
they do not respect the similar configuration and number of edges
C. Define two projections corresponding to two adjacent areas as 5 7
the same surface
D. Do not find the projection corresponding to surfaces which 3 9
are perpendicular to a plane of projection in the view where its
projection is an edge
E. Define two projections corresponding to two adjacent areas as a 2 10
geometrically impossible surface
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

d. Not contemplating the surface which is perpendicular to a plane of projection, which

by having a line as one of its projections, is not detected by the student who is trying to
match the shape of a projection with another similar shape in other view.
e. Defining two projections corresponding to two adjacent areas as a geometrically
impossible surface.
4. Deficiencies in tracing the perspective:
a. Not using reference elements for the tracing: four of the students did not resort to
tracing the prism which surrounds the part as a reference element to limit and position
the surfaces to be drawn in the perspective.
b. Not correctly locating the corners of a surface in the perspective: especially when having
to draw oblique planes in the perspective, not having proportioned the three coordinates
of the corners parallel to the system’s axes, and trying to situate them approximately,
characterizes the students who have analysed the statement correctly but who are not
able to draw it in perspective correctly (one third of students).

3.1 Example of analysis of deficiencies and difficulties in the surface analysis method

Below there is an example of the analysis carried out to categorize and determine the
deficiencies in one of the solution methods which was used.
One strategy consists of identifying the views in which the surface has a similar configuration
and number of edges. The surfaces keep the same number of edges that define their outline in
the different projections, unless the plane face appears as an edge.
A similar shape or configuration is useful in the visualization or creation of drawings with
multiple views of objects which have oblique and sloped surfaces. By looking at the shape of a
surface, meaning, at the number of edges of the outline and its configuration, we are analysing
a variable of the surfaces which is used to correspond the projections of a surface from one
view to another, and thereby determine the type of surface which produces them.
The students’ answers were analysed using the aforementioned method and different
answering categories were identified which are indicated in table 2.

4. Conclusions and implications for teaching

As a result of analysing the student interviews, it has been possible to detect a series of learning
deficiencies and difficulties which usual teaching has not managed to correct. It should be
highlighted that for basic problems such as these, although the students reach the final correct
 Visualization and drawing tasks 321

solution, they commit numerous errors during the solution process. So they resort to trial and
error and to intuition, and show serious deficiencies and difficulties, both conceptual, and
in terms of procedures when solving these problems. Consequently, even though a student
presents the correct final answer, this does not mean that the solution process was correct
or efficient. The student obtaining the correct final answer does not guarantee that he has
managed to learn with comprehension, as some of the deficiencies shown were only able to
be detected by recording the solution process and analysing it afterwards.
In principle, based on the deficiencies detected in the interviews, it gives the impression that
usual teaching seems to be centred on presenting the conceptual contents involved in systems of
representation, later proposing that students solve visualization problems, but without dealing
with procedure contents involved in them, or explaining the forms of reasoning which occur
during the solution process for these types of problems.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

The results of the qualitative analysis on the solution process students follow on the visu-
alization problems seem to indicate that they do not know the different methods and solution
strategies for this type of problem. It seems that it will be necessary to resort to a didactic
intervention which goes beyond simply presenting the theoretical concepts of the systems of
representation. A didactic intervention which makes the students practise these procedures.
We agree with Mathewson (1999) when he comments that educators commonly neglect
teaching visual–spatial thinking. An examination of most paper-based materials reveals that
they do little to foster developmental growth of spatial abilities. Engineering texts frequently
present orthogonal, static views of concepts, theories and ideas with little or no explanation
or focus on interpreting the spatial data, almost assuming that the student will be able to make
the mental leap, piecing together the spatial puzzle.
We thereby propose the possibility that dealing with this educational failure could consist
of developing a teaching strategy which deals with the learning difficulties, working with the
student on visualization problem-solving processes, meaning the methodology and forms of
reasoning behind part visualization, and taking into account in their teaching both concept
and procedure contents which are involved, stressing the reasoning followed in the deduction
process and in detecting errors and deficiencies which are produced in them.
We are designing and implementing a various programme of activities, such as recognition of
primitive solid forms, recognition of surfaces with similar forms and configuration, projection
studies, analysis of multiple view planes, further study of procedure aspects, missing lines
problems, or open problems.
Potter (2003) states that perception and mental imagery can be developed through
various applications, which include modelling and sketching, representing objects in three-
dimensional models, working from three-dimensional models to represent their different
dimensions on paper, as well as experience in working with different perspectives of objects
and models as represented on paper or on the computer screen. These considerations have
been taken into account when designing the activity programme and implementing it in a
multimedia system. It basically consists of offering the possibility of interaction with the parts
proposed through the different activities using virtual reality. According to Bertoline et al.
(1997), there is another way to improve a person’s skill in visualizing a 3D object or scene: by
making that experience as realistic as possible. Some students may have difficulties related to
an object’s spatial reality and its corresponding plane representation. By interacting with the
part, these comprehension difficulties are reduced.
The teaching strategy will consist in proposing these activities in the classroom with the
idea that the student will solve them both individually and interacting with their class-
mates and with the lecturer, in a participative process of continuous interaction. It deals
with the different phases involved in solving visualization problems: initial quality analysis,
hypothesizing, evaluation of different problem-solving methods and strategies, explaining in
 322 M. Garmendia et al.

detail the reasoning used during the solving process and results analysis, putting particular
emphasis on the initial quality analysis of the statement and the final analysis of the errors
made during the problem-solving process, trying to find their causes as a result of some defi-
ciencies. This gives the lecturer an idea of the general group progress, to readapt the teaching
activities according to this progress. The programme of activities developed and the results
of its implementation will be shown in future works.

References
Bertoline, G., Wiebe, E., Miller, C. and Mohler, J., Technical Graphics Communication (2nd edn), 1997 (Irwin
McGraw-Hill Inc.: Chicago).
Cajas, F., The role of research in improving learning technological concepts and skills: the context of technological
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014

literacy. Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 2002, 12, 175–188.

Cook, T.D. and Reichardt, Ch.S., Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, 1986 (Sage
Publications, Inc: London).
Ferguson, E.S., Engineering and the Mind’s Eye, 1992 (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).
French, T., Engineering Drawing, 1947 (McGraw-Hill. Inc: New York).
Furió, C., Iturbe, J. and Reyes, V., Contribución de la resolución de problemas como investigación al paradigma
constructivista de aprendizaje de las ciencias. Investigación en la escuela, 1994, 24, 89–99.
Giesecke, F., Mitchell, A., Spencer, H.C., Hill, I., Loving, R.O., Dygdon, J.T. and Novak, J., Engineering Graphics
(8th edn), 2001 (Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NY).
Gil, D., Constructivism in science education: the need for a clear line of demarcation. In Science Eduaction in the
Knowledge-based Society, edited by D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos
and M. Kallery, 2003 (Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht).
Guisasola, J., Almudí, M., Ceberio, M. and Zubimendi, J.L., A teaching strategy for enhancement of physics learning
in the first year of industrial engineering. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 2002, 27(4), 379–391.
International Technology Education Association, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology, 2000 (ITEA: Virginia).
Kvale, S., InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, 1996 (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA).
Larkin, J.H., The role of problem representations in physics. In Mental Models, edited by D. Gentener andA.L. Stevens,
pp. 75–98, 1983 (Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NY).
López, R. and Anido, M., El medio computacional como material didáctico en la enseñanza gráfico-visual. In XVI
Congreso Internacional de Ingeniería Gráfica, 2004.
Luzzader, W.J. and Duff, J.M., Fundamentals of Engineering Drawing, 1986 (Prentice Hall: New York).
Mathewson, J.H., Visual–spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Science & Education, 1999,
83(1), 33–54.
McKernan, J., Curriculum Action Research, 1996 (Kogan Page: London).
McKim, R.H., Experiences in Visual Thinking, 1980 (Wadsworth: Belmont, CA).
Middleton, H., Creative thinking, values and design and technology education. Int. J. Technol. Design Educ., 2005,
15, 61–71.
Ministry of Education, Graphics Education: Guidelines for Years 9–13, 2001 (Learning Media: Wellington).
Pérez Carrión, T. and Serrano, M., Ejercicios para el desarrollo de la percepción espacial, 1998 (Editorial Club
Universitario: España).
Potter, C.H. and Merwe, E. Van Der, Perception, imagery, visualization and graphics. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 2003,
28(1), 117–133.
Potter, C.H., Merwe, E. Van Der., Kaufman, W. and Delacour, J., A longitudinal evaluative study of student difficulties
with engineering graphics. Eur. J. Engng Educ., 2006, 31(2), 201–214.
Stake, Investigación con estudio de casos, 1998 (Morata: Madrid).
Sternberg, R.J., Forsyth, G.B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W.M., Wagner, R.K. and Grigorenko, E.L.,
Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life, 2000 (Cambridge University Press: New York).
White, T.R. and Ginstone, F.R., Metalearning and conceptual change. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 1989, 11, 577–586.

About the authors

Mikel Garmendia is assistant professor at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. He
earned his PhD in Engineering Design Graphic Education at the University of the Basque
Country. His current research interests include engineering education and approach for
classroom innovation.
 Visualization and drawing tasks 323

Jenaro Guisasola is a professor of Physics in the Applied Physics Department and he has been
a faculty member at the University of the Basque Country for the last 12 years. He earned his
PhD in physics education at the University of the Basque Country. He is the author or co-author
of 13 books and numerous journal articles. His current research and publication interests are
diverse and emphasize the role of cognitive psychology and the history and philosophy of
science in Physics education and in approaches for classroom innovation. His interests also
include scientific literacy and science museums.

Egoitz Sierra is teacher assistant at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. He is working
in his PhD in Engineering Design Graphic Education.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 02:20 16 November 2014