1. Introduction
Teaching methods play an important role in enabling students to acquire high-quality educational content. Over the past two decades, the rapid dissemination of information and the constant need for new web applications and smart mobile devices have unveiled numerous hidden talents in individuals (within and outside the academic world) who have shared their experiences, consequently enhancing educational content and fostering the evolution of innovative teaching methods. The necessity of remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced this trend through the development of online and remote teaching methods (Boyko et al., 2021; Çakıroğlu et al., 2022; Dagman & Wärmefjord, 2022; Hiroi & Ito, 2023; Kentel, 2022; Mou, 2023). These intensive changes are challenging universities to actively improve their curricula by developing new, more effective methods of knowledge transfer to retain their role as the largest knowledge providers (Fernandes et al., 2020; Venema & Lodge, 2013).
The concept of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education approach was introduced in the 1990s with the aim to incorporate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics as an integrated, real-world, and hands-on method of knowledge transfer that would prepare students not only to understand theories but also to apply knowledge to practical problems. The term STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math) was introduced by Yakman (2008), who expanded the concept by including Art into STEM, adding creativity to the interdisciplinary approach and making education more engaging and human centred.
Technical drawing is a primary example of STEAM education, as it combines all disciplines into one university course that is taught in the first semester of almost all technical or engineering programmes. It represents a type of “alphabet” for graphic communication, requiring spatial visualisation skills that are important in mechanical, design, civil, and architectural branches (Gonzalez Campos et al., 2019; Velázquez et al., 2023). During the course, students learn the basic rules of projecting objects and dimensioning according to ISO standards while also taking into account the specifics of a particular branch. In the mechanical engineering branches, a strong emphasis is placed on the preparation of production and assembly drawings. It is necessary to acquire knowledge for proper object projection in a clear and aesthetically pleasing manner, including the correct selection of standard paper format, scale, number of views, necessary cross-sections, arrangement of dimensions, etc. Production drawings are also equipped with symbols that define requirements for processing procedures, surface quality, and dimensional and geometrical tolerances. This additional information is usually a challenge for students and can cause psychological discomfort when it comes to mastering the course content, particularly for students without any technical background from secondary school. Based on teaching experience, students generally find it easier to master the rules of projection, section cuts, and dimensioning, whereas they tend to struggle more with understanding the symbols related to production and product functionality. This reduces the possibility of synergistic interaction with the content of other courses (e.g., computer-aided design (CAD), machine elements, geometric product specifications (GPSs), planning of technologies and products, planning and production management, and others). Based on our own records of student performance collected over several years, approximately 75% of students use standardised symbols in their project-task drawings without fully understanding their meaning. This is mainly due to a lack of knowledge of manufacturing process technologies, which highlights students’ limited exposure to the technological aspect of STEAM education. Therefore, it is important to better incorporate the technological aspect, particularly regarding manufacturing technologies, into STEAM education using suitable teaching/learning methods to transfer this knowledge.
In addition to mastering technical competencies, university education plays a significant role in shaping students’ social and collaborative skills (Kahu, 2013; Melguizo-Garín et al., 2022; Zepke & Leach, 2010). In engineering courses such as technical drawing, group-based projects and peer review processes have the potential to foster interpersonal communication (Garnjost & Lawter, 2019; Melguizo-Garín et al., 2022), shared problem-solving, and emotional engagement with the learning content. These forms of social interaction are particularly valuable for students’ broader professional development, as they mirror the collaborative environments of engineering practice. The literature suggests that when students interact meaningfully in educational contexts, their sense of belonging and perceived value of education increase (Gutierrez-Berraondo et al., 2025; Willey & Freeman, 2006), leading to improved engagement and deeper learning. Therefore, integrating socially interactive, product-oriented learning tasks in technical drawing could simultaneously promote technical mastery and strengthen students’ social and emotional connection to their studies.
The development of internet technology and mobile smart devices in the last decade has enabled the possibility of constant access to social media, particularly among young people, leading to an increase in addiction to mobile smart devices (Kim, 2017; Mahapatra, 2019). Modes of communication and social interactions among young people have undergone significant changes, largely shifting towards the virtual space while reducing physical interactions. Consequently, scientists observe a rise in social and psychological problems among young people, with increased instances of self-isolation, emotional distress, and social anxiety (Hornstein & Eisenberger, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic, characterised by lockdowns and social distancing, significantly contributed to the acceleration of these processes, causing additional problems for students (Hornstein & Eisenberger, 2022; Hortigüela-Alcala et al., 2022). In cases of increased social isolation, where individuals do not exchange information with their peers or teachers, their final outcomes, although more unique, tend to be of very low quality. In such situations, students lack a benchmark to assess what constitutes a satisfactory result, often leading to feelings of surprise, disappointment, and occasionally even aggression toward teachers. Hence, it is crucial to identify an appropriate teaching methodology that can also effectively engage students in comprehending the essential content necessary for their future professional and social development (Bissett-Johnson & Radcliffe, 2021).
1.1. Literature Review
Teaching/learning methods play a crucial role in helping students gain knowledge and confidence. Effective methods can enhance students’ learning experiences, improve their retention of information, and promote their ability to apply knowledge in various contexts (Butler, 2012; Da Silva & Agostinho, 2018). The most commonly used teaching practice in the technical drawing course includes a combination of teacher-centred lectures in large groups, typically used to convey theoretical concepts and principles, followed by teacher-centred or student-centred exercises in the form of simple tasks in smaller groups that allow students to apply those concepts in a more tangible way (Enache et al., 2018). Larger project-based tasks can be incorporated to allow students to apply and deepen their knowledge, for instance, producing a unique documentation of a real-life structure; these tasks can be performed individually or in a team and drafted either manually or using computer-aided design (CAD) software.
The teacher-centred method is the traditional method of knowledge transfer to students and represents the main teaching mode in universities. It is commonly employed for large groups (more than 30–40) of students (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). It refers to the transfer of knowledge to students in which the teacher is placed in the centre of a learning environment, disseminating knowledge while students typically adopt passive learning positions. Despite the efforts of the teaching staff and the use of dedicated didactic aids in the form of PowerPoint presentations, video content, and virtual visualisations for an easier presentation of spatial objects, it is difficult to keep students motivated and engaged, especially in large groups. Some improvements have been documented following the application of the flipped classroom method (Tomas et al., 2019), but effectively centring the learning process around students remains challenging. In such large groups, individuals rely on the rest of the group, become passive, and feel less inclined to participate. Authors who examined the effectiveness of group work (Apedoe et al., 2012; Crede & Borrego, 2012) state that the complexity of the learning task limits the optimal group size to between three and seven members. As the number of group members increases, the so-called Ringelmann effect appears (Ingham et al., 1974), resulting in a decrease in individual motivation to perform tasks.
The student-centred method is an active educational method that places the student at the centre of the educational experience instead of the teacher, as in the traditional teacher-centred learning method. In this method, students take an active part in their education by engaging in activities that promote critical thinking, collaboration, self-reflection, problem-solving, and social development (Rashwan et al., 2020; Stefanou et al., 2013; X. Zhang et al., 2023). This usually involves activities such as work in small groups, project-based learning, inquiry-based learning (Ashel et al., 2024; Luo et al., 2023), and hands-on activities (Parrish et al., 2023; L. Zhang et al., 2021). It also encourages students to take ownership of their learning and become active participants in the learning process. It is a very popular, established, and effective method for mastering content in almost all fields of study, such as linguistics (Barham & Clarke, 2022), chemistry and medicine (Wilson et al., 2019), engineering (Chae & Lee, 2019; Rashwan et al., 2020), and computer science and design courses (Tsai et al., 2022; X. Zhang et al., 2023). Student-centred teaching applying the project-based method represents a highly effective approach for teaching the content of the technical drawing course, as it helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, while also becoming more engaged and socially connected with their peers. Although issues related to prior experience (Jiang et al., 2022), language (Žavbi & Tavčar, 2005), and psychological challenges (Joyce & Hopkins, 2014) are frequently reported by team members, this approach remains one of the leading learning methods in almost all areas of education (Jiang et al., 2023).
Project-based learning, a student-centred active method that involves dynamic interaction through which students acquire deeper knowledge and explore real-world challenges, dates back to 1897 (Dewey, 1897). Mastering the content of the technical drawing course usually involves working on a long-term project that requires students to apply engineering design principles and technical drawing techniques, thereby enhancing problem-solving and critical thinking skills. The project-based learning method can be implemented in the technical drawing course by giving PTs to a single student (individual-based) or a team (group- or team-based). The documentation can be drawn by hand or using CAD software (Fakhry et al., 2021; Fernandes et al., 2020; Kondo et al., 2023; Pando Cerra et al., 2020). In recent years, online and blended learning approaches have also become increasingly popular, providing students with greater flexibility in their learning while still delivering high-quality educational content (Boyko et al., 2021; Dagman & Wärmefjord, 2022; Enache et al., 2018; Kentel, 2022; McKernon et al., 2024; Mou, 2023; Stone et al., 2020).
Basic knowledge of the technological processes involved in product manufacturing is necessary for the preparation of quality technical documentation of a product (Baronio et al., 2016; Shen & Lu, 2021). However, first-year students, particularly those without a technical background from high school, often lack basic knowledge of fundamental machining processes, which are crucial for a deeper understanding of the subject matter. On the other hand, integrating a costly hands-on experience with machining technologies into universities’ curricula at the very beginning of studies represents a significant challenge, which consequently leads to restricted exposure to the technological aspect of STEAM education. The relationship between production processes and knowledge of technical drawing has, therefore, not been thoroughly explored. To address this gap, multimedia animations are frequently used (Baronio et al., 2016; Shen & Lu, 2021) to support students in developing a clear understanding of the importance of machining processes and in making meaningful connections between these processes and the dimensions represented in engineering drawings. To support the teaching and active learning of technical drawing, different web-based tools (Pando Cerra et al., 2014) and applications have been developed for graphical representations of solids, such as the augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) tools developed by Huerta et al. (2019) and Clinciu (2013). As a result of research and collaboration between three Italian universities, a self-learning interactive tool, 2TDLT, was developed (Baronio et al., 2016; Villa et al., 2018). It is based on videos and animations demonstrating the connection between basic machining processes and workpiece dimensions in technical drawings. Other authors (Pando Cerra et al., 2020; Shen & Lu, 2021) studied the influence of multimedia animation to support their lectures during the technical drawing course, and the results showed that the application of animation technology in teaching technical drawing is very reasonable and practical. However, the biggest drawback of engineering subjects (unlike in programming, languages, mathematics, or design, where the project outcome often represents a final product) is that in fields such as mechanical engineering or chemistry, the project outcome often remains on paper, without the physical realisation of a final product (except in cases where laboratory conditions and technological equipment are provided to enable complete realisation).
Recent studies have shown that socially interactive learning environments positively affect students’ engagement, motivation, and perceived value of education (Gutierrez-Berraondo et al., 2025; Willey & Freeman, 2006; Zepke & Leach, 2010). Collaborative learning strategies, especially when embedded in project-based tasks (Gutierrez-Berraondo et al., 2025; Martín et al., 2021; Melguizo-Garín et al., 2022), encourage peer-to-peer dialogue, increase ownership of learning, and help reduce emotional isolation, which is a growing concern among university students. These effects are particularly relevant in technical disciplines, where social interaction is often overlooked in curriculum design. The practical, hands-on influence on learning outcomes and student motivation has been extensively studied, particularly in fields that do not require substantial technological equipment, organisational infrastructure, and high financial investment. For example, Shana and Abulibdeh (2020) investigated the impact of practical work on students’ attainment in secondary school science subjects (chemistry and biology). Using a quasi-experimental design, they compared the performance of students taught through traditional methods with those engaged in intensive, hands-on practical lessons. Their findings highlighted a significant improvement in academic outcomes among students who participated in practical work, underscoring the need for schools to prioritise laboratory-based learning and ensure the availability of necessary resources. The study by Zhao et al. (2025) evaluated the impact of open collaborative practical teaching on public health students’ satisfaction compared to traditional approaches. The results of their study demonstrate the effectiveness of open collaborative teaching reforms in improving public health education, emphasising their potential to foster innovation and align education with modern public health demands. Prianto et al. (2022) examined the impacts of implementing four practical learning activities to develop deep learning competencies. The results of their study also showed that the implementation of practical learning activities fosters various skills and positive attitudes, such as academic skills, practical skills, learning strategies, work attitudes, career orientation, work readiness, collaboration, and communication. Vrellis et al. (2016) compared problem-based learning methods in real and virtual environments in terms of the learning outcomes and satisfaction among undergraduate university students. The results showed that both environments provided similar learning outcomes. However, the virtual environment was found to be a more pleasurable and informal learning environment, while the real one was perceived as more stressful. In the field of engineering applicative courses, the literature is limited. Only a study by Vaillant et al. (2014, 2015) explored the impact of hands-on CNC machining on students’ motivation. The results of their study showed that the students involved in the hands-on courses experienced higher levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation when compared to students enrolled in a more traditional, lecture-based course. Bonnema et al. (2005) investigated the introduction of systems engineering to third-year students in industrial design engineering with the aim of encouraging students to apply systems engineering tools in a practical situation. In our study, we also take this approach further by enabling students to physically realise (manufacture) their final product of the project tasks (PTs) and actively participate in the manufacturing and assembly of their own products, based on the technical documentation they created themselves.
1.2. Research Questions
Based on the previous discussion and a review of the relevant literature, it is evident that in some engineering fields, such as Robotics, Machine elements, and Manufacturing processes, students lack hands-on experience; therefore, the technological component of STEAM education is often underrepresented. Only a small number of students’ PTs involve hands-on, practical experience. A common understanding among the students is that their projects will remain theoretical and will never be brought to life. Consequently, they are not motivated or required to actively participate in the execution of their PTs. The purpose of this research was to explore how the actual manufacturing of a final project product influences students’ cognitive learning outcomes, their engagement, and the overall quality of their work. Therefore, the main research question of this study is as follows:
Does the working methodology (individual vs. teamwork with or without real product manufacturing) affect students’ knowledge gain, as measured by the difference between pre- and post-test scores in a technical drawing course?
In addition to the cognitive learning outcomes, we were also interested in how different working methodologies (individual vs. teamwork, with or without product manufacturing) affect students’ overall satisfaction, their perception of the knowledge gained, and the development of social connections at the beginning of their studies in a post-COVID-19 learning environment, increasingly shaped by digital communication and remote learning that exacerbate social disconnection.
2. Methodology
2.1. Participants
The study included 206 first-year students in the first Bologna cycle at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, during the winter semester of 2022/2023. The vast majority of students included in the study were born between 2002 and 2004. Among them, 196 students were enrolled in their first year for the first time, while the remaining participants were enrolled for the second time. Ten participants were female, and they were distributed among the groups. For the laboratory exercises, the students were divided into 15 laboratory groups consisting of a maximum of 14 students, based on their schedule and preferences, until the groups were completely full. Subsequently, these groups were further divided into three different methodological groups: Individual Project-based Group (IPG), Role-play Project-based Group (RPG), and Role-play Project-based Group with Project Realisation (RPGPR). All students experienced highly similar teaching conditions during lectures and exercises, with the exception of the PT. Out of the initial population of 206 students, 176 participants completed the pre-tests, while 162 participants successfully completed both the pre-test and post-test. To ensure data quality, 18 participants were excluded from the analysis because their pre-test scores, post-test scores, or score differences were more than two standard deviations from the average. Consequently, the final analysis focused on the results of 144 participants, and this data is available as electronic, anonymised Questionnaire (available on request). A detailed description of the participants involved in the study is given in Table 1.
2.2. The Course
Throughout the study, 30 class hours of lectures (Weeks 1–16) were delivered by a single professor, 14 class hours of auditory exercises (Weeks 1–7) were conducted by a single teaching assistant, and 15 class hours of laboratory exercises (Weeks 8–16) were conducted and supervised by three experienced teaching assistants, each with 10 to 20 years of experience (Figure 1).
The introduction of the course allows students to understand the background of the subject and the mutual connections between the STEAM branches. As a mathematical branch, descriptive geometry is applied in engineering to project 3D objects in 2D space. It involves using science and mathematics to define the object dimensions required to withstand a particular load, and technological knowledge is needed to manufacture the required product. All this information should be presented on a single paper in an aesthetic way, which requires art and creativity to ensure readers’ comprehension. A detailed presentation of the main principles and learning activities of the subject is presented in Table 2.
2.3. Methodological Groups and Treatment
Three different project-based, student-centred, and active learning methods, with online–offline communications, were evaluated in the technical drawing course during the winter semester of 2022/2023 at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana. Students were divided into three groups, each representing a different active learning method. Two team-based groups, employing the role-play method, were formed to contrast the individual-based method, which is recognised as a widely used and established approach for mastering the content of the technical drawing course.
Auditory exercises for the technical drawing course were conducted at the beginning of the semester. During the auditory exercises (see Figure 2), the basic concepts of projections, section cuts, standard features, and symbols for surface quality, dimensional and geometric tolerances are explained through simple examples, while in the second half of the semester, the laboratory exercises are carried out in smaller laboratory groups (maximum 14 students in a group), and the students are expected to be able to apply the acquired knowledge to other slightly different and more complex practical cases. At the very beginning of the laboratory exercises, in the 8th week of the semester, the laboratory groups were divided into three different methodological groups for the PT realisation (see Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3): the Individual Project-based Group (IPG), Role-play Project-based Group (RPG), and Role-play Project-based Group with Project Realisation (RPGPR) (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The groups were assigned randomly by the student administration office.
2.3.1. Individual Project Group (IPG)
The Individual Project-based Group (IPG) represents the reference group in this study. In this group, the classical methodology of the PT realisation was applied. It is a well-known and established method of performing such PTs, in which students are presented with a drawing or 3D model of the initial design (a few examples are shown in Figure 5, along with an example of task assignments presented in Table 3) with slightly different requirements.
The individual PT was introduced in laboratory groups G2–G6 and G9–G11, as shown in Figure 1. In this methodological group, students are expected to independently produce a unique functional solution and draw three drawings: the assembly drawing, the production drawing of the shaft, and the production drawing of the housing. During the final class, each student defends their drawings. Based on the defence and quality of the produced drawings, the students in this methodological group were evaluated for each of the three drawings. This evaluation was the basis of the final grade, calculated as the average of the three grades.
2.3.2. Role-Play Project-Based Group (RPG)
In this methodological group, the PTs (roles) were divided according to the assembly components, with each student being responsible for preparing the documentation of an individual part or a smaller sub-assembly (Table 2). Every student had to exchange information and be in contact with at least the students who were in charge of the machine parts directly connected to their work. Certain students who were tasked to draw more challenging drawings, such as assembly drawings or shaft production drawings, were dependent on everyone else in the group, and their activity generally followed the completion of the work of other group members. Therefore, in addition to horizontal communication, it was also necessary to maintain vertical communication between members within the group itself. For this purpose, one student from each group was chosen to be the team leader, who was responsible for internal communication within the team and communication with the teaching assistant. The students in each laboratory RPG prepared a joint report in which they described their role in the creation of the product. Additionally, the students also prepared a presentation, and in the final week of the semester, each student presented their work to the teaching assistant and peers. For the purpose of evaluation, the students were given anonymous evaluation forms to evaluate their peers immediately after their presentation. The final grade in this group was calculated as the weighted average of three grades for the quality of the drawing, the quality of the report, and the presentation, and the average of all peers’ grades for their contribution to creating the final product.
2.3.3. Role-Play Project-Based Group with Project Realisation (RPGPR)
This methodology group was very similar to the RPG, with the only difference being that in the RPGPR, the final product of each laboratory group was outsourced for production. Since the students from all methodology groups had the same time schedule for completing the project, the RPGPR students were assigned additional tasks related to the production of their products according to their own drawings (see Figure 6). This includes a quick preparation of the initial solution, coordination and production meetings, as well as additional reporting, also connected with the production process and communication with the company representatives. Therefore, the RPGPR students had to complete the initial solution in two to four weeks to be well prepared for the coordination meeting with the manufacturing workshop. The coordination meeting aimed to present the drawings of the initial solution to receive constructive feedback, identify possible shortcomings of the proposed solution, and reach an agreement regarding the most efficient way of manufacturing their product. After the coordination meeting, the RPGPR students prepared the production and assembly drawings of their product and visited the workshop during the machining and assembly of the product. During this visit, the product was also assembled, providing the students with the opportunity to participate in the manufacturing process, control some dimensions, and measure surface roughness. The method of evaluation for this group was the same as in the RPG.
2.4. Pre- and Post-Test
To evaluate the knowledge gained during the PT realisation, two tests were carried out. The pre-test was carried out at the end of the auditory exercises (see Figure 1) before the PTs were assigned to students, and the final test was performed at the end of the semester. The two tests were designed to be similar in terms of difficulty and scope but differed substantially in geometry and symbol-related requirements. This was carried out to prevent students from relying on prior test experience and ensure that the results of the second test were not influenced by exposure to the first one. Students were assigned a task to draw or sketch a production drawing for a mechanical part, applying the principles of the subject (an example of a typical test is shown in Figure 7). In addition to geometry, the only difference between the pre-test and the final test was the requirements for surface quality and GDT, present in the final test, while all other requirements for drawing, dimensioning, and dimensional tolerances were present in both tests. The results obtained using this method provide a valuable source of quantitative data about the initial state and knowledge gained for each individual student.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
To compare the results of the three methodological groups, four options are typically available: one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the final test results, one-way repeated measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA), ANOVA on the difference between pre/post test results, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the pre-test results as a covariate (Demirhan & Sahin, 2021; Fisher, 1970; Huck & McLean, 1975). One-way ANOVA on the final results does not account for the existing differences between the groups before the treatment, and it does not use the advantage of the existing pre-test results. By fitting 3 (methodological groups) × 2 (pre-test vs. post-test) repeated-measures, RM-ANOVA yields information about the effect of the condition, test, and their interaction, while only the last one is usually considered relevant to the research question, and the other two can lead to wrong interpretations (Huck & McLean, 1975). In this study, one-way ANOVA on the score difference between the pre-test and the final test is performed as the most simple and effective analysis to compare the pre/post-test result differences between the methodological groups. To ensure the validity of this approach, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were assessed prior to analysis. The normality of score differences was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. The homogeneity of variances across groups was tested using Levene’s test. If these assumptions are violated, alternative robust methods such as Welch’s ANOVA or a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test can be considered to confirm the consistency of the results. All analyses were conducted using SPSS v30 software.
2.6. Survey
To support the analysis of the three educational methodologies (IPG, RPG, and RPGPR), a survey was conducted at the end of the semester in order to gather valuable feedback and insights regarding the students’ perception about their learning outcomes, learning experiences, social contacts, and overall satisfaction with the PT realisation and the course. Thus, two sets of questions were prepared using the web survey application “
3. Results
3.1. Pre- and Post-Test Results
The normality of three datasets, including the pre-test, final test, and score differences between the pre-test and the final test, was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. The p-values associated with these tests are all greater than 0.05, implying a failure to reject the null hypothesis of data normality. Therefore, the data in all three sets can be assumed to follow a normal distribution. Levene’s test was used to assess the homogeneity of variances of the difference between the pre-test and the final exam. The results of this test showed non-significant values ranging from 0.786 to 0.806, again confirming the null hypothesis of homogeneity of the variances among the groups. The results of the pre-test and post-test, along with the score differences for all three methodological groups, are presented in Figure 11. Table 4 presents descriptive statistics about the three different groups, including the number of participants, means, standard deviations, errors, etc. Since the score difference between the pre-test and the final exam was used as the dependent variable, we can see that participants in the RPG and RPGPR, on average, scored better on the final exam, while the control group (IPG) scored worse on the final exam on average. Table 5 presents the ANOVA results on the score between the final exam and the pre-test. We can see that the sum of the squared deviations from the mean is much lower between the groups than within the groups, which is expected, considering the spread of scores ranging from 0 to 100. The significance level (p-value) associated with the F-statistic is lower than 0.05, indicating that there are significant differences between the mean values of the three groups, while the post hoc Tukey’s HSD test, presented in Table 6, clearly shows the significant difference between the RPGPR and the IPG. The other two combinations, on the other hand, show no significant differences. The mean values of the scores between the final test and the pre-test are also shown in Figure 12.
3.2. Survey Results
The results of the students’ self-evaluation survey for the contribution of the PT to their acquired knowledge and social interaction with peers are summarised in Figure 13. Students’ self-evaluation results about the contribution of the PT to the acquired knowledge in the technical drawing course showed that students in the control group (IPG), who completed the PT in a classical way, think that the PT contributed more compared to students in the RPGPR and RPG (Figure 13a). Namely, 20% of the students in the IPG believe that the PT fully contributed (score of 5) to their knowledge gained in drawing, while almost 0% in the RPG and only 7% in the RPGPR gave this response. The self-assessment results are also similar for the other subjects (Figure 13a). This indicates that the students in the RPGPR understood the complexity of the synergy between individual topics during the PT realisation and the industrial partner, and they were thus careful in self-evaluating the knowledge they acquired during PT realisation. On the other hand, self-evaluation of the knowledge gained is higher for students in the control group (IPG), presumably due to the significantly longer time required to draw the required drawings. Students’ self-evaluation results about the contribution of the PT to their social interaction with other peers showed that students from the control group (IPG) lacked social interactions compared to the RPG and RPGPR (Figure 13b). In contrast, the students from the RPG and RPGPR seem to have established stronger social connections due to the PT. They knew each other’s names, met more often outside of class, and thought that the PT significantly contributed to connecting with their peers (Figure 13b). The survey results regarding students’ recommendation of the PT working methodology applied in their own group are presented in Figure 14. It can be noted that the strongest recommendation is expressed by the RPG (66% belong to scores 5 and 6 together), followed by RPGPR (60% for the same two scores) and IPG (26% for the same two scores).
4. Discussion
This study highlights the educational value of integrating collaborative, project-based, and hands-on manufacturing experience into the technical drawing course for first-year engineering students. The findings demonstrate that allowing students to realise their own project tasks (PTs) through manufacturing significantly improves learning outcomes, fosters stronger peer relationships, and enhances student satisfaction—especially when compared to the individual project-based approach. Knowing that their product would ultimately be manufactured based on the technical documentation they created motivated students to engage more actively in the preparation process. In addition to the intended learning outcomes, they gained deeper insights, such as understanding the cost and availability of components, and developed a more concrete awareness of the practical significance of the symbols for surface quality and GDT, particularly in relation to product assembly and functionality. This also fostered communication and social interaction, enabling the development of stronger relations among peers at the very beginning of their studies. It should be noted that the score difference between the pre-test and the final test in the RPGPR was positive for the first time in the last decade, although the final test is traditionally more demanding since it includes additional requirements for surface quality and GDT course topics. The students in the RPGPR had a significantly more active role, including more demanding and time-intensive assignments during PT realisation. Nevertheless, their perceived value of the assignment and their test results show higher values than those in the control group. Despite the fact that no significant difference in the score difference was observed between the IPG and RPG, the reduction in score difference was smaller in the RPG, although students in this group spent less time drawing the PT and more time in conversation and social interaction, sharing ideas, knowledge, and experience. Moreover, the social benefits observed in the RPG are worth further investigation into how the benefits of the PT manufacturing process and industry interaction can be transferred. The findings of the study are in accordance with the previous results published by (Shana & Abulibdeh, 2020; Zhao et al., 2025; Prianto et al., 2022; Vaillant et al., 2014, 2015), who also confirmed that the students involved in hands-on courses experienced higher levels of knowledge gained, motivation, satisfaction, and social interactions.
The results of the student survey also support the observations of the study. The students from both team-based methodology groups (RPG and RPGPR) expressed significantly higher satisfaction compared to the individual-based group (IPG) and were more likely to recommend the work methodology for PT realisation they experienced in their group. This was further underscored by the dissatisfaction expressed by students in the IPG in the faculty’s standard annual student survey conducted. However, it is worth mentioning that a small number of students from all three groups indicated that an individual approach would have been more suitable for them, as it does not require interaction with others and allows for greater flexibility in time management. This aligns with numerous studies that highlight various teamwork challenges associated with prior experience (Jiang et al., 2022) or psychological conditions (Jiang et al., 2023; Joyce & Hopkins, 2014).
Although the size of the team plays an important role in the effectiveness of PT realisation, it was considered in this study. However, as it was impossible to control the formation and size of the laboratory groups, some general observations by the teaching assistants are important for discussion. It was noticed that the workflow was much better in the two smallest groups (nine students in each), which is consistent with the existing findings demonstrating that group size influences the level of active participation among members (Apedoe et al., 2012; Crede & Borrego, 2012). Better communication within the group and student participation were observed in smaller groups, in contrast to the larger laboratory groups (12, 12, and 14 students), where there was slightly more intervention from the teaching assistant, especially at the beginning of the project until the first contact with the industrial partner. It was also found that students can successfully carry out such projects at the very beginning of their studies only if they are properly guided by both the university and industrial partners, and if the laboratory groups are appropriately sized and have properly defined PTs. It was also observed that the groups with strong leaders (the students with previous experience with design and manufacturing) were found to perform better than those without such members. Although this was also not directly analysed and evaluated in the study, it is an aspect worth considering during group formation in future iterations of the course.
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was relatively small and drawn from a single institution, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. Second, the duration of the study was short, restricting the ability to observe long-term effects of the implemented methods. Third, the evaluation relied partly on self-reported measures, which may be subject to bias. Finally, potential variations in instructors’ teaching styles and students’ prior knowledge were not fully controlled, which could have influenced the outcomes.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrates that the methodology employed during PT realisation significantly impacts students’ learning outcomes in a technical drawing course. Specifically, students involved in the Role-play Group with Product Realisation (RPGPR) showed the most substantial knowledge gains, indicating the added value of integrating real-world manufacturing processes into engineering education. The findings confirm that moving beyond traditional approaches, including student-centred and project-based individual work (IPG), towards more collaborative and practical methodologies (RPG and RPGPR) increases student engagement both cognitively and socially. The RPGPR, in particular, offers a compelling model by combining theoretical learning with hands-on production, practical communication, and time-constrained problem-solving skills, which are vital for real engineering contexts.
The findings underscore the necessity of incorporating real-world applications into early-stage engineering education to enhance not only cognitive outcomes but also student motivation, perceived learning, and social engagement. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, an era increasingly shaped by digital communication and remote learning, which can exacerbate social disconnection (Hornstein & Eisenberger, 2022; Hortigüela-Alcala et al., 2022; Kim, 2017), the intentional design of socially interactive, practice-oriented learning tasks is not only valuable but necessary. In conclusion, the results of this study underscore the educational value of active, student-centred, and product-oriented learning methods in a technical drawing course and their significant impact on students’ social interaction and collaboration, as highlighted in previous research (Gutierrez-Berraondo et al., 2025; Jiang et al., 2023; Kahu, 2013; Yakman, 2008). Based on these findings, we propose extending the well-established STEAM framework to STEAMS, where the added “S” stands for social skills. This emphasises the importance of integrating social competencies into technical and creative education, especially in project-based environments that simulate real-world teamwork and communication. The STEAMS model offers a more comprehensive approach to 21st-century education by bridging technical knowledge with essential interpersonal skills. We hope that these insights will encourage educators to rethink the design of technical courses and incorporate structured collaboration and real-world implementation as core components of engineering education.
Conceptualization, J.T., M.A. and R.K.; Methodology, J.T.; Software, J.T.; Investigation, M.A.; Writing—original draft, J.T.; Writing—review & editing, M.A. and R.K.; Project administration, J.T.; Funding acquisition, J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The survey conducted in this study was designed and implemented without the collection of any personal or sensitive data. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous, ensuring full protection of participants’ privacy and rights. In accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations of our institution, formal ethical approval was not required, as the study involved no invasive procedures, posed no risk to participants, and did not include the collection of identifiable or sensitive information.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The authors wish to acknowledge the help of the students involved in the study as well as the members of the Department of Modelling in Engineering Sciences and Medicine at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Acknowledgments. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Structure of technical drawing course.
Figure 2 Presentation of methodological and laboratory groups.
Figure 3 Presentation of methodology groups for PT realisation.
Figure 4 Presentation of work process cycles for different methodology groups.
Figure 5 Presentation of examples of PT: (a) simple differential, (b) drive shaft with housing, (c) wood saw—drive assembly, (d) wheel (e) wheel.
Figure 6 (a–h) presentation of particular assemblies and parts machined and assembled according to technical documentation created by RPGPR teams.
Figure 7 Example of typical evaluation test.
Figure 8 Set of questions for self-evaluation of the acquired knowledge due to PT.
Figure 9 Set of questions for self-evaluation of social impact due to PT.
Figure 10 Representation of participants by methodology groups: (a) survey data and (b) laboratory groups (own evidence).
Figure 11 Test result data and data treatment: (a) pre-test, (b) final test, and (c) score difference.
Figure 12 Mean plots of the score difference between the pre-test and the final test.
Figure 13 Results of student survey: (a) evaluation of PT’s contribution to acquisition of knowledge; (b) evaluation of PT’s contribution to creating social contacts with other peers.
Figure 14 Evaluation of the extent to which students would recommend the method of PT realisation as experienced in their group.
Characteristics of the participants in the study.
| Variables | Levels | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 10 |
| Male | 196 | |
| Enrolment in 1st year | First time | 196 |
| Second time | 10 | |
| Lecturer | Teaching assistant 1 | 108 |
| Teaching assistant 2 | 56 | |
| Teaching assistant 3 | 42 | |
| Language | Native language | 194 |
| Foreign language | 12 | |
| Methodological group | IPG | 98 |
| RPG | 43 | |
| RPGPR | 64 | |
| Pre-test participation | Yes | 176 |
| No | 30 | |
| Both tests participation | Yes | 162 |
| No | 54 | |
| Used in the analysis | Within 2 standard deviations of the average | 144 |
| Outliers | 18 |
Presentation of tasks required for producing technical documentation.
| Principles | Teaching and Learning Activities |
|---|---|
| Identify and define context | Visual inspection of the object, identification of characteristic features, decision on manufacturing and assembly processes |
| Basics for projecting objects | Selection of drawing format and framing, decision on multi-view projection layout, selecting the orientation and the main view, determining the auxiliary view requirements, drafting the individual views according to standards |
| Section cuts | Identification of the section requirements, selecting the section method according to standards, implementation of the section symbols in the drawing |
| Standard features | Identification of standard features (threads, grooves, countersunk holes, etc.), standard simplifications for display, retrieving data, presentation on drawings |
| Dimensioning | Following the basic principles of dimensioning according to standards, adjusting and positioning the dimensions according to the selected manufacturing process |
| Dimensional tolerances and fits | Identification of the features that require dimensional tolerances, selecting fits according to functional requirements, calculation of tolerance limits and fit clearances according to standards, implementation of the dimensional tolerance information on the drawing |
| Surface quality | Identification of the features that require surface quality information, standard symbols for surface quality, achievable surface qualities of different manufacturing processes, relation between surface quality and dimensional tolerance |
| Geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing (GDT) | Purpose and basic principles of GDT, relations between features, types of GDT, datum features, datum dimensions, material conditions, standard GDT symbols and their placement on the drawing |
| Other symbolic information | Standard symbolic information associated with welding, casting, and forging, and its relation to the manufacturing process, producing special drawings containing this information according to standards |
Example of roles (tasks) assignment according to the project/task requirements.
| Student No. | Assembly Roles (Tasks Within the Group) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Pulley, circlip, and shaft dowel key |
| 2 | Selection of bearings along with tolerances and surface quality requirements for bearing settings |
| 3 | Pulley, circlip, and shaft dowel key |
| 4 | Assembly drawing |
| 5 | Sub-assembly drawing of the housing |
| 6 | Selection of wheels and definition of wheel seatings |
| 7 | Bearing housing cover on the left side |
| 8 | Assembly drawing |
| 9 | Production drawing of the shaft |
| 10 | Selection of wheels and definition of wheel seatings |
| 11 | Bearing housing cover on the right side |
| 12 | Production drawing of the shaft |
Descriptive statistics of the groups.
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error | 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Between- Component Variance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||||||
| RPG | 27 | −1.556 | 13.776 | 2.651 | −7.005 | 3.894 | −26.0 | 23.0 | ||
| RPGPR | 51 | 2.510 | 14.902 | 2.086 | −1.682 | 6.701 | −30.0 | 29.0 | ||
| IPG | 66 | −6.409 | 13.404 | 1.650 | −9.704 | −3.144 | −33.0 | 19.0 | ||
| Total | 143 | −2.340 | 14.490 | 1.207 | −4.727 | −0.047 | −33.0 | 29.0 | ||
| Model | Fixed Effects | 14.021 | 1.168 | −4.650 | −0.030 | |||||
| Random Effects | 3.033 | −15.391 | 10.711 | 21.139 | ||||||
One-way ANOVA.
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between Groups | 2308.960 | 2 | 1154.480 | 5.873 | 0.004 |
| Within Groups | 27,718.866 | 141 | 196.588 | ||
| Total | 30,027.826 | 143 |
Post hoc Tukey’s HSD test.
| (I) Methodology | (J) Methodology | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
| RPG | RPGPR | −4.065 | 3.337 | 0.444 | −11.970 | 3.839 |
| IPG | 4.853 | 3.203 | 0.287 | −2.734 | 12.441 | |
| RPGPR | RPG | 4.065 | 3.337 | 0.444 | −3.839 | 11.970 |
| IPG | 8.918 * | 2.614 | 0.002 | 2.727 | 15.111 | |
| IPG | RPG | −4.853 | 3.203 | 0.287 | −12.441 | 2.734 |
| RPGPR | −8.918 * | 2.614 | 0.002 | −15.111 | −2.727 | |
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Apedoe, X. S.; Ellefson, M. R.; Schunn, C. D. Learning together while designing: Does group size make a difference?. Journal of Science Education and Technology; 2012; 21,
Ashel, H.; Hamidah, I.; Anwar, S.; Muslim, M. Research trends and opportunities of argumentation based learning for solving problems in physics learning: A bibliometric analysis. Jurnal Eksakta Pendidikan (JEP); 2024; 8, pp. 99-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24036/jep/vol8-iss2/941]
Barham, K. A. A.; Clarke, R. “When we see strange words”: Student-centered experiences using dictionary apps within and beyond the English language classroom in Palestine. Sage Open; 2022; 2022,
Baronio, G.; Motyl, B.; Paderno, D. Technical drawing learning tool-level 2: An interactive self-learning tool for teaching manufacturing dimensioning. Computer Applications in Engineering Education; 2016; 24,
Bissett-Johnson, K.; Radcliffe, D. F. Engaging engineering students in socially responsible design using global projects. European Journal of Engineering Education; 2021; 46,
Bonnema, G. M.; Lutters-Weustink, I. F.; Van Houten, F. J. A. M. Introducing systems engineering to industrial design engineering students with hands-on experience. Proceedings—18th International Conference on Systems Engineering, IICSEng 2005; Las Vegas, NV, USA, August 16–18; 2005; pp. 408-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSENG.2005.50]
Boyko, M.; Turko, O.; Dluhopolskyi, O.; Henseruk, H. The quality of training future teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case from TNPU. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
Butler, D. Second Life machinima enhancing the learning of law: Lessons from successful endeavours. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology; 2012; 28,
Chae, S. E.; Lee, M. S. Student-centered learning and higher-order thinking skills in engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education; 2019; 35,
Clinciu, R. DesPerrieres, O. D.; Mazuru, S.; Slatineanu, L. Graphical representation of solids—An important issue in teaching technical drawing. Innovative manufacturing engineering; Trans Tech Publications, Ltd.: 2013; Vol. 371, pp. 493-498. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.371.493]
Crede, E.; Borrego, M. Learning in graduate engineering research groups of various sizes. Journal of Engineering Education; 2012; 101,
Çakıroğlu, Ü.; Saylan, E.; Çevik, İ.; Mollamehmetoğlu, M. Z.; Timuçin, E. Faculty adoption of online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A lens of diffusion of innovation theory. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology; 2022; 38,
Dagman, A.; Wärmefjord, K. An evidence-based study on teaching computer aided design in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences; 2022; 12,
Da Silva, I. B.; Agostinho, O. L. A strategy for teaching and learning technical drawing. International Journal of Engineering Education; 2018; 34,
Demirhan, E.; Sahin, F. The effects of different kinds of hands-on modeling activities on the academic achievement, problem-solving skills, and scientific creativity of prospective science teachers. Research in Science Education; 2021; 51, (Suppl. S2), pp. 1015-1033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09874-0]
Dewey, J. My pedagogical creed. John Dewey on education: Selected writings; University of Chicago Press: 1897.
Enache, I.-C.; Valter, N.; Duca, M. Roceanu, I.; Beligan, D.; Ciolan, L.; Stefan, I. The importance of blended learning for a technical drawing classes. Elearning challenges and new horizons; “CAROL I” National Defence University Publishing House: 2018; Vol. 1, pp. 109-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-18-014]
Fakhry, M.; Kamel, I.; Abdelaal, A. CAD using preference compared to hand drafting in architectural working drawings coursework. Ain Shams Engineering Journal; 2021; 12,
Fernandes, F. A. O.; Fuchter Júnior, N.; Daleffe, A.; Fritzen, D.; Alves De Sousa, R. J. Integrating CAD/CAE/CAM in engineering curricula: A project-based learning approach. Education Sciences; 2020; 10,
Fisher, R. A. Statistical methods for research workers. Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution; Springer: 1970; pp. 66-70.
Garnjost, P.; Lawter, L. Undergraduates’ satisfaction and perceptions of learning outcomes across teacher- and learner-focused pedagogies. International Journal of Management Education; 2019; 17,
Gonzalez Campos, J. S.; Sanchez-Navarro, J.; Arnedo-Moreno, J. An empirical study of the effect that a computer graphics course has on visual-spatial abilities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2019; 16,
Gutierrez-Berraondo, J.; Iturbe-Zabalo, E.; Arregi, N.; Guisasola, J. Influence on students’ learning in a problem- and project-based approach to implement STEM projects in engineering curriculum. Education Sciences; 2025; 15,
Hiroi, Y.; Ito, A. A robotic system for remote teaching of technical drawing. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Hornstein, E. A.; Eisenberger, N. I. Exploring the effect of loneliness on fear: Implications for the effect of COVID-19-induced social disconnection on anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy; 2022; 153, 104101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2022.104101]
Hortigüela-Alcala, D.; Chiva-Bartoll, O.; Hernando-Garijo, A. “I feel lonely, I don’t understand you when you talk, and I find it hard to breathe”. Analysis of the emotional tensions of physical education students in the Spanish setting of COVID-19. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2022; 112, 103657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103657]
Huck, S. W.; McLean, R. A. Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyze the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological Bulletin; 1975; 82,
Huerta, O.; Kus, A.; Unver, E.; Arslan, R.; Dawood, M.; Kofoglu, M.; Ivanov, V. Kerren, A.; Hurter, C.; Braz, J. A design-based approach to enhancing technical drawing skills in design and engineering education using VR and AR tools. Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on computer vision, imaging and computer graphics theory and applications—IVAPP; SciTePress: 2019; Vol. 3, pp. 306-313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5220/0007566003060313]
Ingham, A. G.; Levinger, G.; Graves, J.; Peckham, V. The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; 1974; 10,
Jiang, D.; Dahl, B.; Du, X. A narrative inquiry into developing learner agency of engineering students in an intercultural PBL environment. European Journal of Engineering Education; 2022; 47,
Jiang, D.; Dahl, B.; Du, X. A systematic review of engineering students in intercultural teamwork: Characteristics, challenges, and coping strategies. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Joyce, T.; Hopkins, C. ‘Part of the community?’ first year international students and their engineering teams. Engineering Education; 2014; 9,
Kahu, E. R. Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education; 2013; 38,
Kentel, A. S. Emergency remote teaching of technical drawing during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning; 2022; 14,
Kim, J. H. Smartphone-mediated communication vs. face-to-face interaction: Two routes to social support and problematic use of smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior; 2017; 67, pp. 282-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.004]
Kondo, A.; Hayashi, H.; Toyoshi, T. Project-based learning of mechanical design utilizing CAE structural analyses. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Luo, T.; Arcaute, K.; Muljana, P. S. Integrating inquiry-based learning into engineering education: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International; 2023; 60,
Mahapatra, S. Smartphone addiction and associated consequences: Role of loneliness and self-regulation. Behaviour & Information Technology; 2019; 38,
Martín, C.; Segarra, I. M.; Ibáñez, M. A.; Mira, S.; Fajardo, C.; González-Benito, M. E. Effectiveness of a hybrid project-based learning (H-PBL) approach for students’ knowledge gain and satisfaction in a plant tissue culture course. Education Sciences; 2021; 11,
McKernon, S. L.; Adderton, E. A.; Dawson, L. J. Using technology-supported approaches for the development of technical skills outside of the classroom. Education Sciences; 2024; 14,
Melguizo-Garín, A.; Ruiz-Rodríguez, I.; Peláez-Fernández, M. A.; Salas-Rodríguez, J.; Serrano-Ibáñez, E. R. Relationship between group work competencies and satisfaction with project-based learning among university students. Frontiers in Psychology; 2022; 13, 811864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811864] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35222200]
Mou, T. Y. Online learning in the time of the COVID-19 crisis: Implications for the self-regulated learning of university design students. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2023; 24,
Mulryan-Kyne, C. Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education; 2010; 15,
Pando Cerra, P.; Gracia Rodriguez, J.; Fernandez Alvarez, H.; Busto Parra, B. Combining multimedia and self-assessment CAD tools in an interactive web environment to learn engineering drawing. Interactive Learning Environments; 2020; 28,
Pando Cerra, P.; Suárez González, J. M.; Busto Parra, B.; Rodríguez Ortiz, D.; Álvarez Peñín, P. I. Can interactive web-based CAD tools improve the learning of engineering drawing? A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology; 2014; 23,
Parrish, C. W.; Guffey, S. K.; Williams, D. S. The impact of team-based learning on students’ perceptions of classroom community. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2023; 24,
Prianto, A.; Qomariyah, U. N.; Firman,. Does student involvement in practical learning strengthen deeper learning competencies?. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research; 2022; 21,
Rashwan, O.; Abu-Mahfouz, I.; Ismail, M. Student-centered assessment of the capstone design project course in mechanical engineering program. International Journal of Engineering Education; 2020; 36,
Shana, Z.; Abulibdeh, E. S. Science practical work and its impact on students’ science achievement. Journal of Technology and Science Education; 2020; 10,
Shen, Y.; Lu, W. Technology of animation in multimedia courseware of mechanical drawing. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education; 2021; 61, pp. 438-451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020720920986085]
Stefanou, C.; Stolk, J. D.; Prince, M.; Chen, J. C.; Lord, S. M. Self-regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2013; 14,
Stone, C.; O’Shea, S.; May, J.; Delahunty, J.; Partington, Z.; McDougall, J.; Lee, S. M.; Fry, C.; Bernard, R. M.; Abrami, P. C.; Borokhovski, E.; Wade, C. A.; Tamim, R. M.; Surkes, M. A.; Bethel, E. C.; Coulson, F.; Strategy, E.; Committee, I.; Dean, A. … McDougall, J. A framework for student engagement: Strategies for faculty teaching online. Handbook of research on creating meaningful experiences in online courses; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: 2020; Vol. 12,
Tomas, L.; Evans, N. S.; Doyle, T.; Skamp, K. Are first year students ready for a flipped classroom? A case for a flipped learning continuum. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2019; 16, 5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0135-4]
Tsai, C.-Y.; Shih, W.-L.; Hsieh, F.-P.; Chen, Y.-A.; Lin, C.-L. Applying the design-based learning model to foster undergraduates’ web design skills: The role of knowledge integration. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2022; 19,
Vaillant, J.; Hansen, C.; Stolk, J.; Johnston, S.; Shina, S.; Willis, D. Hands on Made4Me: Hands-on machining, analysis, and design experiences for mechanical engineers. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition; Indianapolis, Indiana, June 15–18; 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18260/1-2--20549]
Vaillant, J.; Hansen, C.; Stolk, J.; Johnston, S.; Shina, S.; Willis, D. Examining the integration and motivational impact of hands on Made4Me: Hands-on machining, analysis and design experiences for mechanical engineers. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 26.706.1–26.706.16); Seattle, WA, USA, June 14–17; 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18260/p.24043]
Velázquez, J. S.; Cavas, F.; Fuentes, M. C.; García-Ros, R. Educational pathways, spatial skills, and academic achievement in graphic expression in first year of engineering. Education Sciences; 2023; 13,
Venema, S.; Lodge, J. M. Capturing dynamic presentation: Using technology to enhance the chalk and the talk. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology; 2013; 29,
Villa, V.; Motyl, B.; Paderno, D.; Baronio, G. TDEG based framework and tools for innovation in teaching technical drawing: The example of LaMoo project. Computer Applications in Engineering Education; 2018; 26,
Vrellis, I.; Avouris, N.; Mikropoulos, T. A. Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology; 2016; 32,
Willey, K.; Freeman, M. Improving teamwork and engagement: The case for self and peer assessment. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education; 2006; Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Improving-teamwork-and-engagement%3A-the-case-for-and-Willey-Freeman/adc58a96b0802a5c90c3c9313f82c060b3bbf617 (accessed on 10 August 2025).
Wilson, A. B.; Brown, K. M.; Misch, J.; Miller, C. H.; Klein, B. A.; Taylor, M. A.; Goodwin, M.; Boyle, E. K.; Hoppe, C.; Lazarus, M. D. Breaking with tradition: A scoping meta-analysis analyzing the effects of student-centered learning and computer-aided instruction on student performance in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education; 2019; 12,
Yakman, G. STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of intergrative education. Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-19) Conference: Research on Technology, Ionnovation, Design & Engineering Teaching; Salt Lake City, UT, USA, February 29; 2008; Vol. 53.
Zepke, N.; Leach, L. Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education; 2010; 11,
Zhang, L.; Basham, J. D.; Carter, R. A., Jr.; Zhang, J. Exploring factors associated with the implementation of student-centered instructional practices in US classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education; 2021; 99, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103273]
Zhang, X.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, F. Student-centered case-based teaching and online-offline case discussion in postgraduate courses of computer science. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education; 2023; 20,
Zhao, T.; Deng, W.; Yang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Xu, F. Enhancing student satisfaction through open collaborative practical teaching reforms in public health education: A comparative study. Frontiers in Public Health; 2025; 13, 1546962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1546962]
Žavbi, R.; Tavčar, J. Preparing undergraduate students for work in virtual product development teams. Computers and Education; 2005; 44,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ambrož Miha
; Kunc, Robert