ENGINEERING REASONING GAPS: MODEL KONSEPTUAL DAN TAKSONOMI PADA PEMBELAJARAN CAD 3D
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37304/jptm.v8i1.23987Keywords:
engineering reasoning, reasoning gaps, 3D CAD learning, engineering education, qualitative case studyAbstract
3D CAD learning requires not only mastery of software procedures but also engineering reasoning to understand geometry, determine component relationships, and validate modeling outcomes. This study aimed to identify patterns of students’ reasoning when completing a 3D CAD assembly task, develop an exploratory conceptual model of the reasoning trajectories that emerged during task completion, and identify reasoning gaps underlying the observed processes. A qualitative multiple-case study was conducted with five Mechanical Engineering Education students at Universitas Palangka Raya. Data were collected through task-based observation, screen recordings, and retrospective interviews, and were analyzed using thematic analysis with the assistance of NVivo. The findings revealed three reasoning trajectories: the Cognitive Obstacle Path, Pragmatic-Collaborative Path, and Analytical-Independent Path. Cross-case analysis further identified four categories of reasoning gaps: manufacturing knowledge, inferential reasoning, CAD procedural interaction, and spatial visualization, with error attribution identified as a cross-cutting metacognitive dimension. Based on these findings, an exploratory conceptual model was developed to describe the dynamic relationship among task demands, problem-solving strategies, and verification processes during 3D CAD modeling. The findings provide a basis for designing CAD learning that extends beyond software feature mastery toward the development of engineering reasoning.
Downloads
References
Abdo, S. N., Hsu, J. L., Kapetanakis, C., Newman, D. L., Wright, L. K., & Bailey, J. (2024). An exploration of spatial visualization skills: Investigating students’ use of 3D models in science problems during think-aloud interviews. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(9), 3624–3634. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c01355
Akkuş, İ., & Arslan, P. Y. (2022). The effects of augmented reality in the technical drawing course on engineering students' spatial ability and academic achievement. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7(2), 160–174.
Benedicic, U., Maquet, L., Duffy, G., Dunbar, R., Buckley, J., & Sorby, S. (2023, October). Implementation and analysis of a spatial skills course for secondary level STEM education. In The 40th International Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology Conference Proceedings 2023 (Vol. 1).
Blom, N., O’Connor, S., Lane, D., & Canty, D. (2026). Beyond procedural approaches to designing: A framework for supporting students’ hierarchical thinking through their representational journeys. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 36, 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-09990-1
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
Brown, A., Goldstein, M. H., Clay, J., Demirel, H. O., Li, X., & Sha, Z. (2024). A study on generative design reasoning and students’ divergent and convergent thinking. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 146(3), 031405. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4064564
Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2018). Heuristics and CAD modelling: An examination of student behaviour during problem solving episodes within CAD modelling activities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 939–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9423-2
CAD CAM Tutorial By Mahtabalam. (2024, July 22). Pulley support assembly in SolidWorks | SolidWorks assembly [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKKUuIUGvI
Chacón, O. R. (2025). Influence of technical drawing on the development of spatial visualization ability: A systematic literature review. UTE Teaching & Technology, 2, e3930. https://doi.org/10.17345/ute.2025.3930
Duran, R., Zavgorodniaia, A., & Sorva, J. (2022). Cognitive load theory in computing education research: A review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(4), Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3483843
Gutiérrez de Ravé, S., Gutiérrez de Ravé, E., & Jiménez-Hornero, F. J. (2025). Integrating CAD and orthographic projection in descriptive geometry education: A comparative analysis with Monge’s system. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1492. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111492
Hsing, H. W., Bairaktarova, D., & Lau, N. (2023). Using eye gaze to reveal cognitive processes and strategies of engineering students when solving spatial rotation and mental cutting tasks. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1), 125–146.
Hu, L., Le, D., Yoon, S. Y., & Shepley, M. M. (2024). Expert gaze behaviour in design evaluation: An eye-tracking study. The Design Journal, 27(5), 843–866.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
Kadam, K., Mishra, S., Iyer, S., & Deep, A. (2024). Unfolding learning difficulties in engineering drawing problem solving. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2024.2309703
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Wesenberg, L., Rey, G. D., & Schneider, S. (2025). The distorting influence of primacy effects on reporting cognitive load in learning materials of varying complexity. Educational Psychology Review, 37, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0
Liu, J., Zhong, Y., & Gu, C. (2026). Enhancing work-readiness through scaffolding and cognitive transfer in CAD education: A twelve-year reflective case study. Education Sciences, 16(7), 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16070992
Lukačević, F., Becattini, N., Perišić, M. M., & Škec, S. (2023). Differences in engineers’ brain activity when CAD modelling from isometric and orthographic projections. Scientific Reports, 13, 9726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36823-9
Lukačević, F., Li, S., Becattini, N., & Škec, S. (2022). Comparing EEG brain power of mechanical engineers in 3D CAD modelling from 2D and 3D representations. Proceedings of the Design Society, 2, 901–910.
Mirabelli, J. F., Jensen, K. J., Cromley, J. G., & Vohra, S. R. (2023, June). Conducting the cognitive interview: Sharing experiences and insight from two think-aloud studies. American Society for Engineering Education.
Ramos Barbero, B., Melgosa Pedrosa, C., & Castrillo Peña, G. (2018). The importance of adaptive expertise in CAD learning: Maintaining design intent. Journal of Engineering Design, 29(10), 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1519183
Šafhalter, A., Glodež, S., Šorgo, A., & Ploj Virtič, M. (2022). Development of spatial thinking abilities in engineering 3D modeling course aimed at lower secondary students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 167–184.
Seabra, R. D., & Santos, E. T. (2013). Developing the spatial visualization ability with a virtual reality tool for teaching descriptive geometry: A Brazilian experience. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 17(1), 101–117.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
van Nooijen, C. C. A., de Koning, B. B., Bramer, W. M., Isahakyan, A., Asoodar, M., Kok, E., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2024). A cognitive load theory approach to understanding expert scaffolding of visual problem-solving tasks: A scoping review. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wu, J., & Walker, C. (2024, June 23–26). Mechanical engineering reasoning diagram: How can modeling engineering thinking support learning in writing intensive labs? [Paper presentation]. 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR, United States.
