Back to the Drawing Board?

AbstractThis paper reports on the results of a surveyconducted within the Department of Designand Technology, Loughborough University,UK, in response to increasing concern overthe quality and effective use of 2D modellingby design undergraduates at all levels. Asurvey, in the form of a questionnairesupported by ongoing tutorials, was conductedin an attempt to establish the underlyingreasons why there was a perceived drop inmanual drawing standards. Focusing on theuse of manual draughting skills and formalengineering drawing, the survey includes asummary of academic backgrounds,experiences of 2D modelling in secondaryeducation, student perceptions of the use ofCAD and the importance of manual drawingskills, and the aspirations of students whenembarking on tertiary education. The majorityof the student entry for the Industrial Designand Technology programmes for the academicyear 2001-2002 took part in the survey,numbering 120 students.

IntroductionIn response to increasing internal censureconcerning the quality and effective use of 2Dmodelling used by undergraduates at alllevels, a survey was conducted in an attemptto establish the underlying reasons why adecline in manual drawing standards wasevident. Although the quality of drawing wasquestionable for different aspects of drawing,it was decided that a focus on the use ofmanual draughting skills and formalengineering drawing was appropriate. Thisarea was selected for three main reasons.

I) Students tend to find this the mostarduous graphics subject to tackle.

2) Students follow a structured course inengineering drawing as part of the firstyear of the degree programmes, whichenabled the monitoring of basic skills andprogress.

3) The radical changes in engineeringdrawing practice now defined by theBritish Standards Institution in BS 8888.

It was decided that the survey should includea summary of academic backgrounds,previous experiences of 2D modelling insecondary education, student perceptions ofboth the use of CAD and the importance ofmanual drawing skills, and the aspirations ofstudents when embarking on tertiaryeducation. The majority student entry for theIndustrial Design and Technologyprogrammes for the academic year 2001-2002took part in the survey, numbering 120students.

There have been many publications on thestudy and use of2D modelling in the designand technology field (see Garner, 1989, forexample). These publications have highlightedthe need to understand the use of such designtools when developing creative ideas,experimenting with form and communicatingthem to others. A specific and vitallyimportant area of 2D modelling that hasreceived less attention is the more formaldiscipline of engineering drawing. A reason,perhaps, why this area has received lessattention could be attributed to the fact that itmay be considered a less creative method ofgraphic communication in comparison withfreehand sketching. However, the importanceof engineering drawing in a design processmust not be underestimated. It is the primarymethod of presenting the true geometric shapeand technical manufacturing detail,unambiguously. Indeed, engineering drawings,from initial layouts and general arrangementsthrough to final detail drawings, can be usedextensively to experiment with scale and fit-up of components. It further enables a moreeffective planning technique for productassembly, materials specifications andgeometric tolerances.

With these criteria in mind, it could be arguedthat the designer has, in fact, to be morecreative whilst using such a modelling tool asit forces the designer to work within specifiedproduction and manufacturing constraintswithout compromising the overall design. Itencourages the designer to adopt a concurrentengineering approach by forcing theconsideration of production andmanufacturing engineering techniques,appropriate materials selection and productcosts.

More recently, the emergence of CAD hasenabled the generation of repetitively accurateengineering drawings, with the addedadvantage of providing almost seamless linksbetween 3D graphics generation, photo-realistic renderings and CAM capabilities.Thc digital format enables compact storageand much more rapid communication than itshardcopy predecessors. There is no doubt thatthe development of CAD over the last 15years has revolutionised drawing offices andthe way in which designers work graphically.As a consequence of this, further questionsregarding the educational requirements andlevels of competency in the use of technologywithout compromising key skills needs to beraised. This paper is aimed at adding to thisdebate.

John R.McCardle

Lecturer,LoughboroughUniversity

Design visualisation and modellingThe skill of a designer is multi-faceted, but afundamental role is that of a communicator,facilitator and catalyst for the generation ofideas and solutions to ill-defined problems.

'The most essential thing that any designerdoes is to provide, for those who will makethe artefact, a description of what theartefact should be like. Usually, little ornothing is left to the discretion of themakers; the designer specifies theartefact's dimensions, materials, finishesand colours. When a client asks a designerfor 'a design', that is what they want, thedescription. The focus of all designactivity is that end point.' (Cross, 1990)

The description of the design that Cross refersto entails the selection and presentation of themost salient features of the design solution byuse of the most appropriate modellingtechniques. These can vary from crudesketches to detailed engineering drawings, 3Dmock-ups (appearance models) and complex3D CAD models, through to fully functionalprototypes.

In the 2001 DATA lecture, John Smithprovided a comprehensive overview of the useof modelling for design development andvisualisation (200 I) and defines a model as:

'a representation of something that exists,or in the case of design and engineering,something that could be produced. Amodel has only some of the attributes ofwhat it is representing. Different types ofmodels can represent different attributesand some can demonstrate particularattributes better than others.' (Smith, 200 I:6)

The lecture continues listing a basic and longaccepted taxonomy of modelling methods as:

a) symbolic models - using abstract codesuch as mathematical descriptions

b) allalogue //lodels - using symbols andschematic representations

c) iconic models - representing an aspect ofphysical appearance of a product such as adrawing, or 3D model.

Clearly, engineering drawing fits into the'Iconic' category, albeit in a much moreformal, structured way than could normally beassociated with modelling methods.Engineering drawings are a precise method ofcommunicating the technical detail ofgeometric dimensions, assembly, materialsand manufacturing processes to productionengineers. The languages of engineeringdrawing, the symbolic representation ofphysical characteristics of a component, the

semantics and the instructions these conveyhave been developed over many years througha system of standardisation.

As mentioned earl ier, the emergence of CA Dsystems has provided assistance in reducingthe labour intensive and often time consumingmethods of producing engineering drawings.However, the language remains the same. Touse CAD to produce engineering drawingsstill requires the knowledge and basic skills ofunderstanding the standardised language. Itcould further be argued that the introductionof CAD could initially be more labourintensive as these complex tools have arelatively steep learning curve associated withthem. However, it is understood that in thelonger term, the advantages of CAD aredistinct and valid.

The importance of standards in.engineering drawingIt should be readily accepted that standardshave made a major impact upon educationaland industrial design practices. Although theorigins of standardisation were primarilyconcerned with ensuring uniformity of goods,today the implications run far wider andinclude major issues of quality and fitness forpurpose. The main aims of standardisationcan be summarised as:

I) provision of communication among allinterested parties

2) promotion of economy in human effort,materials and energy in the productionand exchange of goods

3) protection of consumer interest throughadequate and consistent quality of goodsand services

4) promotion of the quality of life: safety,health and the protection of theenvironment

5) promotion of trade by the removal ofbarriers caused by differences in nationalpractices (Parker, 1991)

From a design and technology perspective, allthese areas are extremely relevant. But, inparticular, standards relating to engineeringdrawing practice require special attention. Thestandards of drawing practice are doubleedged, not only are they a standardised meansof effective communication but they also havea direct bearing on the quality of the overalldesign of a product, by facilitating thedetailed production planning and accuracy ofmanufacture.

For many years the adopted standard withinBritish industry centred on BS 308. Apartfrom specific and specialised areas of design

and manufacture, such as the defence industry(often using a combination of NATO andservice standards e.g. British AdmiraltyStandards), BS 308 provided the coredefinitive guidelines for the production ofengineering drawings. An abridged version ofthe standard was also made available forschools and colleges in the form of BSPP7308.

The future of drawing standardsIn 200 I, the BS 308, covering practices forengineering drawing, was formally withdrawn.In its place has emerged the BS 8888Engineering drawing practice. In schools andcolleges also, PP 888- J has now replaced theoriginal abridged educational version of BS308. The aims of this new standard are toprovide an internationally recognised, unifiedtechnical standard encompassing both BS andISO documentation. Within the new globaleconomy this is an understandable, thoughmajor, undertaking. The changes have beenfurther fuelled by the emergence of CADapplications within industry, and the need toaddress standards in communication and CADfile format, as well as the graphicalvisualisation. However, to achieve the globalconsensus required for the standards to beaccepted it will necessitate major changes inworking practices.

The following summarized criteria have beenIisted as the principal changes that have beenadopted by BS 8888:

I) BS 8888 is prescriptive. BS 308 can bepresented in a number of different forms.Identification of a requirement isconventionally achieved by the use of theword 'shaW, as in 'shall do'. BS 8888 is aspecification for the preparation of atechnical product document, e.g. productspecifications. As a specification BS 8888consist largely of clauses that areidentified as being normative, i.e.prescriptive. The withdrawn BS 308provided recommendations that acted asguidance. The prescriptive nature of BS8888 is useful because completeness ofspecification, elimination of ambiguityand universal application are ofimportance in today's manufacturingenvironment. This is an environment inwhich the demand for highly sophisticatedfunctionality of work pieces at acompetitive, commercially viable cost isincreasing. Many companies demonstratean increasing tendency to:

pursue legal settlement of dispute;

favour the introduction of qualitymanagement systems (e.g. BS EN ISO9000)

opt for outsourcing or subcontractingin preference to in-house manufacture;

depend on digitised informationtransfer and computer aided processes.

2) From drawings to technical productspecification: BS 8888 now provides amore holistic approach to documentingcomponents for manufacture, irrespectiveof the medium selected for presentation.(BSI,2000: I)

The fundamental point of the new standard isone for the need of strict compliance.Methods of communicating the specificationof a product design needs to be explicit andthe new BS 8888 will elevate the status ofengineering drawings to legally bindingdocuments. The implications of this are, ofcourse, wide ranging but importantly thequality of design and presentation will beforced to improve and there will be anincreased responsibility on the designer to getit right. In the past, practising designersadhered, more or less, to the guidance offeredby BS 308. This 'guidance' was ofteninterpreted as 'flexibility' in the standard, andused quite openly to generate idiosyncratic oreven stylised engineering drawings. Theexplicit nature of BS 8888 means that this isno longer possible.

Modelling and engineering drawing in theNational CurriculumThe QCA document relating to Key Stages 3and 4 of the National Curriculum relating tosubjects in design and technology considersthe use of modelling in terms of effectivecommunication in the following ways.

use graphic Techniques and ICT, includingcompuTer-aided design (CAD), Toexplore.del'elop, model and communicaTe designproposals .. .'

and for Key Stage 4;

designformanu(aCTuring in quantity. .. '(DfEE and QCA, 1999: 136-139)

Although the. use of modelling is specificallystated, the use of appropriate modelling isonly alluded to. However, the importance ofCAD use is stressed frequently within thedocument.

It should be understood that engineeringdrawing and the basic fundamental skill of

geometry and geometric/technical drawing isan effective modelling method. And, indeed,provides the necessary foundations in beingable to understand the rudiments of CADwork.

The relationship between CAD andmanual drawingWith an increasing reliance on computer aideddesign systems for the presentation of designsolutions, the necessity for design students toacquire manual draughting skills could bequestioned. The accelerated development ofCAD technology has certainly changed theway designers utilise their drawing skills,however, as with many new technologies theimpact could lead to the acceptance of thetechnology as a panacea for design methodsand the misapprehension that basic drawingskills, technical knowledge, and understandingof the formal language of engineeringdrawing are no longer required in detail.

To argue that this is the case would also meanthat other key skills such as mental arithmeticcould be considered redundant since theinvention of the electronic calculator, or thatgrammar and spelling are no longer keyrequirements since word processors, with theirsophisticated checking software, have becomemore ubiquitous.

In addressing the effective teaching of ICTactivities, for instance,

'Any learning experience needs to startwith a concrete (familiar) experiencebefore moving to the abstract (unfamiliar).As good teachers are aware, newexperiences, which are unfamiliar, arebased upon what is already familiar. If thisprinciple is forgotten then the learners willfind the work too difficult. This is notbecause it is too demanding, but becauseof the conceptual jump over the dividebetween what can be done already andwhat is to be done now. This principle isoften overlooked when using ICTresources because computers may not beconsidered as abstract.' (Zanker, 2000)

In keeping with what is more likely to befamiliar to pupils, namely 2D sketchmodelling, it could be concluded that theabstract leap required to facilitate effectivedesign via CAD will necessitate a strongfoundation in the key skills associated withengineering drawing by hand. It is importantto understand that technology should be usedas a tool and an aid to designing, and not asubstitute for the key skills required toundertake the act of designing.

The industrial design and technologyprogramme at Loughborough University,UKThe degree programmes for Industrial Designand Technology 8A/8Sc Degree coursefollows a well-established curriculum that hasdeveloped over the last 20 years. Year oneaims to develop abilities in physical, graphicaland mathematical modelling and includessuch subject areas as Design Practice, DesignContexts, Materials Science and Processing,Foundation Technology, Ergonomics andDesign, and Graphic Modelling. In year two,skills in research, planning, modelling,building and evaluating are encouraged. Shortdesign projects are undertaken alongside thelecture programme and longer-term projects.Subject areas cover: Design Practice, DesignStudies, Computing, Materials Selection,Presentation Techniques, Product Analysis,and Sustainable Design. Final-year studentsundertake client-based projects and adissertation on an aspect of design. Thisinvolves researching appropriate literature,discussing the topic with people in the subjectarea and gaining first hand experience of thechosen topic. The design projects may belinked to industry, hospitals, social needs orresearch. Subjects include; Design Practice,Design Project, Product Semantics, DesignResearch, Dissertation, Management andMarketing, Information Technology, ProductAnalysis (Systems and Environments),Inclusive Design, Materials, and Computer-Aided Modelling and Manufacture (CAMM).(D&T,2002)

Student entry requirements for theprogrammes vary depending upon previousindustrial experience, academic performanceand the content of a design portfolio.Prospective students are expected to attain a260 point score with a minimum of a '8' passin A' Level design and technology or relatedtopic.

All programmes have a common first year,and as part of a 'Design Practice' module,students are expected to undertake a series ofseven coursework assignments over the twosemesters, aimed at developing graphicalcommunications skills in engineeringdrawing. This is supported by 25 hours oflectures and tutored drawing practice.

The survey methodologyThe survey was conducted using acombination of questionnaire andtutorial/interview contact. The aims were:

I) to identify the experiences of students inthe area of formal engineering/technicaldrawing

35

30

25

~co

J!J 20cQ)"C

15::lin10

5

0Design & Electronics

Technology

2) to review the students' perceptions ofengineering drawing practices

3) to identify student aspirations towardsengineering drawing methods

ResultsStudent academic and industrialexperienceThe student intake for the academic year2001-2002 consisted predominantly of schoolleavers who had undertaken GCSE, AS and A'Level routes into tertiary education. It isworth noting that this entry were the last yeartaking A' Level as opposed to the new A2qualification format. Eight percent of theintake had received vocational training in theform of work placement during a gap year.The work experience varied from interiordesign such as pub interiors and kitchens toelectro-mechanical manufacture and assemblyand architectural offices. Only one studenthad taken vocational qualifications (GVNQAdvanced Engineering and NVQ Electrical

4) to assess student competency inengineering drawing practice.

Each student, under guidance, completed thequestionnaire. Following a review of thecompleted questionnaires, salient informationwas collated and a cross-section of the studentpopulation was interviewed to validate theanswers. All the students were then engagedin the lecture/tutorial sessions in formalengineering drawing practice, and theircompetency and progress monitored viacoursework assessment and tutorials.

70

60

50

?ftJ!J 40cQ)

"C30::lin20

10

0

Figure 1: GCSEDesign & Technologyrelated qualificationsof student intake,2001 (LoughboroughUniversity,Department ofDesign andTechnology).

Figure 2: A' Leveldesign andtechnology relatedqualifications ofstudent intake, 2001.(LoughboroughUniversity,Department ofDesign andTechnology)

Figure 3: CommonCAD packages usedby students withinsecondary educationfor student intake,2001. (LoughboroughUniversity,Department ofDesign andTechnology)

45

40

~35

Gl 30.cE 25::::IZ- 20CGl

"C 15::::I-en 10

5

0'" " 0 ;g

'"c -< " 8 < Cl 0

U c '" U 'in c,~

N ~ " E~ "- 0

'"~ 0 f- .0

'"~

< x ~ " N

" f-

'" "< '"u e0 0-Z

N

~ '" " ~ '" E $ ~ '" '"0 0 !(l

'" '" c < f- .l2 < < Uj '"UJ "~ '" < Cl "- u 11 < !l u u :l! :l! 31£ U 'in '" c a; U '" is'" " :> .:;

'" CD fil' c< '" ~ :J 'S Cl:J '" ~u < '" :> 0 :l! 0 .jG.~ '" :!:

'"u:: :g

"'"CAD Packages

Installation) leading to one completed year ofa HND in Mechanical Engineering prior touniversity entry, and one further student hadtaken a BTEC General Engineering route intouniversity.

Twenty-six percent of the intake had receivedwork experience either as a short-termsummer placement or on a more casual basis,with 23% having design/manufacturing/architectural office experience.

In terms of a purely academic background,92% had taken the conventional A' Levelentry route to university, having had a wide-ranging set of qualifications. Figures I and 2illustrate the design related academicachievement of the student cohort. As can beseen, the majority excelled in design andtechnology subject areas with 34% achievingA* at GCSE and a further 30% achieving Agradcs. Within A' Level almost 70% of theintake received A grades with all butapproximately 4% of the remainder achievinga B grade.

Experience of engineering/technicaldrawingThe majority of the cohort (84%) claimed tohave experience with engineering drawingswithin secondary education as part of GCSE,AS and A' Level design and technology.

Twenty percent of the students claimed tohave had contact with engineering drawingswithin a professional environment, whichcorresponds closely to the levels ofindustrial/work experience of the studentintake.

When questioned about the levels of standardsthey had been taught within secondaryeducation, only 4% had heard of, or werefamiliar with the concepts of engineeringdrawing contained in BS 308 or theeducational equivalent PP7308. Theremaining 96% claimed to have had receivedno formal tuition in accepted British Standardconventions in engineering drawing practice.

Experience of drawing and designmethodsSeventy percent of those who had been taughtengineering or technical drawing withinschool had commenced their education ondrawing boards using manual skills, with 2%claiming that their first introduction toengineering drawing was through theapplication of CAD. Sixty percent of thecohort had also progressed within school togain experience with CAD packages. Figure 3illustrates the common CAD packages thathad been used by the students. By far themost common package was AutoCAD, withover 40%, with the nearest rival beingProIDESKTOP, with just over 15%.

Four percent claimed to have had noexperience in the use of either manualdrawing skills or CAD. Upon closerexamination of this 4%, it became clear thathalf had taken GCSE and A' Level subjects inart and IT for entry to their university course.However, the remaining 2% had taken designand technology subjects and had achievedhigh-grade passes at both GCSE and A' Level.

45

40

35

~ 30

~ 25••~ 20

en 15

10

r- -

- -- -

~ ,....,I r - -

35

30

:: 25c•• 20

"~ 15

10

18

16

14

~ 12

c: 10..~ 8., 6

5 6 7

1 - Easy 10 - Difficult

Perceptions of CAD and manual drawingskillsThe student cohort was questioned withregard to their own perceptions of therelevance of adopting a specific method ofcreating engineering drawings. In general,regardless of previous experience, themajority concurred that learning both CADand manual drawing skills were a necessaryskill for their educational and professionaldevelopment. The overall results areillustrated in Figure 4.

Perceived levels of difficUlty in drawingmethodsThe enthusiasm to learn specific methods ofengineering drawing practice can often begauged by a combination of past experienceand the level of difficulty perceived in usingthat method. The students were asked to givean estimate on levels of difficulty ingenerating engineering drawings by bothmanual and CAD methods with the resultsillustrated in Figure 5.

The overall perception of difficulty linkedclosely with past experience, with moststudents with CAD experience tending tobelieve that this was a more straightforwardmethod to adopt. Similarly those withoutCAD experience tended to perceive manualdrawing as a relatively easy skill to master.Whatever their past experience, the majorityconsidered the CAD option as being a priority

:: 15c••".s 10.,

5 7

1 - Easy 10 - Difficult

skill to pursue, with the main reason citedbeing future employability and the use of suchtechnology in industry.

Advantages and disadvantages ofspecific drawing methodsWhen asked to discuss the advantages anddisadvantages of adopting a specific drawingmethod, either CAD or manual drawing on adrawing board, the student cohort had equalperceptions of relevance for the industrialdesign and technology course. A summary oftypical answers is given in Table I.

Figure 4: Studentperceptions ofdrawing methods.

Figure 5: Studentperceptions ofdiffiCUlty in specificdrawing methods.

Student progression in engineeringdrawing practiceThe taught module for engineering drawingaimed to cover the basic hand skills andfamiliarisation of current British standards inthe subject area. Although BS 8888 was atthis point in force, the explicit nature of thenew standards were, at that time, consideredto be too advanced for use in developing basicdrawing skills. Therefore the basicconventions of BS 308 were used.

Table 2 gives an overall summary of thesubject content for the engineering drawingmodule and the assessment criteria of thecoursework.

Table 1: Studentresponse to theadvantages/disadvantages of CAD andmanual drawing.

Table 2: Summary ofEngineering Drawingmodule, year 1.(LoughboroughUniversity,Department ofDesign andTechnology)

Better quality finish.

Quicker!

Advantages of Manual Drawing

Helps to understand what CAD is trying to achieve.

Broadens drawing capabilities.

Cheaper.

Improves hand-eye co-ordination.

Don't have to learn a computer package.

Networking.

Less possibility of human error.

3D modelling links.

Rendering links.

Animation links.

Easier parts list generation.

Widely used in industry.

Mathematical modelling possible.

CAM links.

General remarks on student competencyand progressAt the beginning of the course it was evidentthat most students had a rudimentaryunderstanding of orthographic projection andin particular the generation of third angleviews. Over 60% of the students were,however, confused over how such projections

Introduction to Engineering Drawing and Design

Principles of Orthographic Projection

Hard copy available if technology fails/crashes.

Can develop own style.

Shows more designerly skill.

Easier to construct compound shapes.

Quicker to generate ideas.

Easier to visualise the whole drawing.

Non-reliance on technology.

were constructed. Only 2% of the studentgroup were aware of first angle projectionsand their construction.

The spatial skills of the students, and theability to visualise 3D objects in 2D and viceversa was generally good when given 3Dobjects to work from. More difficulty wasevident in manipulating images mentally to

Using sketching and solid modelling to work through givenexercises.

Assignment 1 Line work skills test developing line work skillsthrough given exercises.

Developing skills in orthographic projection through givenexercises.

Assignment 2 Developing line work and projection skills throughproducing an orthographic view of a chosen product.

Assignment 3 Developing line work and projection skills throughproducing an assembly drawing of a selected mechanical product.

Assignment 4 Design of mechanical product to include ideageneration, solution development and communication.

Developing detailing skills through given exercises.

Assignment 5 Developing line work, projection and dimensioningskills through preparing a detailed drawing of a productcomponent.

Assignment 6 Dimensioning skills through preparing a detaileddrawing of a product component.

Assignment 7 Preparing a detailed drawing according to theneeds interchangeability and cost of fits, interchangeability andmanufacture.

construct 2D views when dealing with purely2D drawings. The cognitive modelling neededto transpose images without physicallyconstructing an object in 3D was an area inwhich the students required continuingsupport and guidance. Figure 6 illustrates thegeneral concept of cognitive modelling andthe ability to construct 2D drawings viaimagining and manipulating 3D images from2D representations.

Basic manual drawing skills were wide andvaried. In some cases difficulty wasexperienced in providing consistent linequality and accuracy. Over 70% of thestudents found difficulty in adopting a formaland rigorous approach to their drawing withmany assuming that free-hand construction ofcomplex curves was acceptable. Most wereunaware of the many draughting toolsavailable, including French curves, templatesand stencils or how to use them effectively.

Elements of technical drawing and theunderstanding of basic geometry were seen tobe lacking as a skill by many of the students.Drawing isometric views, cycloids, helices,oblique planes and the construction of basicshapes including ellipses and conics weredifficult for the students. Very littleexperience of the fundamentals of geometricaldrawing was evident in students entering theDepartment.

Student progression overall was good in termsof understanding the more formal concepts ofthe British Standard conventions. The use ofspecific symbols, standard layouts, line typesand dimensioning conventions were readilyunderstood and used within assignmentsubmissions. However, it was evident thatproblems in constructing shapes, accuratelyand of consistent high quality, remained aproblem for many students.

The main point of student concern received asfeedback from the module was that of thetime required to complete assignments. Thesubject area demands a considerable amountof time and effort, as it is primarily practice-based. The tutorial and lecture time aimed toaddress the immediate concerns andunderstanding of the students, but thediligence required to produce high qualitydrawings is inherently time consuming.

Points for discussionPast experience of engineering drawing andmanual drawing skills played an importantrole in determining the students' competencyin drawing practice at tertiary level. It isinteresting to note that althoughapproximately 96% of the student intake hadtaken formal GCSE/A' Level in design andtechnology subject routes to tertiary

3Dmanipulation

2Drepresentation

education, general competency in geometricdrawing was not high. There is also evidenceto suggest that it is possible to achieve highgrades in design and technology subjects atboth GCSE and A' Level without experienceof any formal method of engineering drawingpractice either through CAD or manualdrawing. Although these cases may be in theminority, the situation raises important issuesas to the learning and use ofgeometric/technical and engineering drawingwithin secondary education.

The advantages and disadvantages of CADand manual drawing methods given by thestudent cohort were very perceptive. Theadvantages of CAD were seen as providing adistinct link to manufacturing through CAMas well as enabling easier manipulation ofimages to form specific views. The imagemanipulation issue could be interpreted asproviding an easier solution to what thestudents found most difficult, cognitivemodelling. The ability to imagine andmanipulate shape and form 'in the mind's eye'is an important key skill for designers todevelop, and one that might diminish due toover reliance on CAD technology. This iscertainly an issue for further research.

It is interesting to note that the perceivedadvantages of manual drawing focussedparticularly on the idiosyncratic, for instanceenabling a better sense of creativity andfreedom of expression. However, theemergence of the new BS 8888 may beresponsible for eliminating this in future. Thenew standard with its strict compliance issueswill introduce a further reason to use CAD,thereby increasing the reliance on technology,possibly to the detriment of key manual andcognitive skills.

Figure 6: Cognitivemodelling of 20 to 3Dand back to a 20.

Students' views of engineering drawing wereencouraging, with the majority accepting therelevance of both CAD and manual drawingcapabilities as being a key skill, which wouldimprove their competency as a designer, aswell as improving their chances ofemployment.

ConclusionEngineering drawing is a very valuablemodelling tool for designers. Althoughperhaps considered more formal than manyother modelling methods, as a discipline forcommunicating effectively the intentions ofthe designer to manufacturers, it is vital andindispensable.

The language of engineering drawing, namelythe standards associated with the area, is set tochange radically in terms of flexibility. Thcnew BS 8888 will, in many ways, de-humanise the production of engineeringdrawings making CAD based methods a moreattractive proposition. The new standards willapply increasing pressure on students to bebetter rehearsed in the rudiments of the areato satisfy the requirements of futureemployers. This, of course, produces a furtherstrain on educators to provide the appropriatelevel of educational output.

Many of the technical issues of CAD andengineering drawing practice can and arebeing dealt with within tertiary education,however, a basic competency in technical andgeometric drawing on entry would provide abetter foundation for students and enable themto improve the overall standard of enginecringdrawing. The survey results provide someevidence to suggest that the desiredbackground and experience in many areas ofgeometry and technical drawing of first yearundergraduates is presently inadequate andprovides a severe learning barrier for theimprovement of engineering drawing qualityat later stages of education.

AcknowledgementsSyd Pace, Lecturer, Department of Design andTechnology, Loughborough University

John S. Smith, Head of Department, Departmentof Design and Technology, LoughboroughUniversity

Dr Eddie Norman, Senior Lecturer, Department ofDesign and Technology, Loughborough University

ReferencesBSI (2000) Engineering Drawing Practice, PP8888-2:2001: A guide for Higher Education to BS8888: 2000, Technical Product Documentation,London: British Standards Institution

Cross, N. (1990) 'The Nature and Nurture ofDesign Ability', Design Studies 11 (3): 127-139

D&T (2002) Department of Design andTechnology: Degree courses in Industrial Designand Technology, Loughborough Universityhttp://www.lboro.ac.ukldepartments/cd/docs_dandt/prospectus/h 775. html

DfEE and QCA (1999) The National Curriculum:Handbook for secondary teachers in England KeyStages 3 and 4, London: HMSO

Garner, S. (1989) 'Drawing and DesigningExploration and Manipulation through Two-Dimensional Modelling', in Smith, J.S. (Ed)National Conference on Design and TechnologyEducational Research and CurriculumDevelopment (DATER 89), LoughboroughUniversity: 43-50

Parker, M. (Ed) (1991) Manual of BritishStandards in Engineering Drawing and Design,London: Britistish Standards Institution, StanleyThomes (Publishers) ltd

Smith, J.S. (2001) 'The Current and Future Roleof Modelling in Design and Technology', TheJournal. of Design and Technology Education 6(1): 5-15

Zanker, N. (2000) Effective Information andCommunications Technology, London, Hodder &Stoughton