The Use of Engineering Sketching and Journaling to Foster Deep Understanding of Construction Engineering

The Use of Engineering Sketching and
Journaling to Foster Deep Understanding of
Construction: an Exploratory Study
Siew, R and Bernold, L (The University of New South Wales, Australia)
Abstract
In today’s teaching environment where students’ main focus is on getting a high mark for a class,
deep understanding has taken a backseat. Being able to answer as many exam preparation questions
as possible and fulfilling all the criteria on an assignment will guarantee success. “I deserve a higher
mark because I worked hard in this class,” are the arguments one hears after the final marks are
published. How about understanding the new material presented in the class? Engineering sketching
and journaling have been hailed by experienced engineers as tools to enhance thinking and
communication. The authors of the paper report about their utilization as teaching tools to foster deep
understanding in a course on construction equipment and methods. While topics like equipments
economics, power transmission and safety benefit from graphing in two-axis coordinate systems,
understanding the best path of a backhoe bucket during a trenching operation is impossible to describe
in words. Of course, understanding has several components: a) WHY do we use a backhoe excavator
and not a trencher, b) WHAT are the possible three link motion paths and their related force vectors,
c) HOW can the operator control the path of the bucket, and d) WHAT-IF there are utilities buried in
the ground?
It will be shown how the four learning types, according to Kolb, respond to the challenges of
expressing their understanding. This paper also presents a correlation analysis between the four
learner types, sketching, journal and students’ examination marks.
Keywords: Engineering Sketching, Journaling, Understanding, Learning, Construction
Introduction
Two major educational tools, journaling and sketching, offer many opportunities for students
to reach higher levels of understanding while acquiring skills that will be critical in their
professional future. While sketching was once hailed as standard practice in the engineering
profession it has succumbed to the more “efficient” digital drafting software available as a
means to represent engineering designs (Sobek 2002).
Was it really fitting to replace sketching with computer-aided-drafting-drawing
(CADD)? According to Tversky (2000), sketches were and are still used in many different
areas for efficient communication especially in engineering. In fact, Jacobs and Brown
(2004) argue that engineering drawings are an essential part of the engineering profession and
that every engineer will deal with some form of graphical representation almost daily. Glegg
(in Kardos 1997) summarized the situation when he wrote “Words are not the natural
language of engineers. Drawings are their prose, mathematics their grammar and differential
equations their poetry”. Sketches provide an effective means to externalise ideas, turn
internal thoughts public and unlike the written language are able to take advantage of
visuospatial ideas, drawing on elements and spatial relations on paper. Arguably, this makes

Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building Conference Series
Siew, R and Bernold, L. (2012) ‘The use of engineering sketching and journaling to foster deep understanding of
construction: an exploratory study’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Conference Series, 12
(1) 31-46
32
comprehension and inference making easier compared to a more subjective medium such as
formal language (Tversky 2000).
Another excellent channel to express thoughts and ideas for oneself or others is the
written journal. However, journaling has never found a real foothold in engineering despite
its additional value to offer students the opportunity to practice writing, a recognized weak
skill of graduating students. Journaling for a class should not be equated with creating a
simple diary of what happened during the semester. Its real power lies in its flexibility to
define leading questions that a student would have to address similar to creating an
engineering sketch. Indeed, the importance of writing cannot be denied. A growing number
of literature associates writing with the learning process (Hyland 2002; Zimmerman 1999;
Tynjala and Mason 2001). Furthermore, writing is not just a linear sequence of activities but
rather one with sub processes such as planning, monitoring, drafting, revising as well as
editing (Southavilay et al. 2010) and differences do occur depending on both the writer’s
style and the nature of the writing task. In many ways, sketching and journaling represent two
different avenues of articulating knowledge and understanding of a subject, each one offering
a unique form of expression.
This paper argues that both sketching and journaling used in engineering education
offer critical traits that facilitate the students’ deep understanding of simple as well as
complex material. It is believed that sketching adds a unique level to understanding beyond
what journals can do.
This paper presents the empirical results of a study with students in a third semester
course called Engineering Construction (Semester 2 -2011). Firstly, the students’ learning
types are established using the LTM survey tool that is based on Kolb’s four learning styles.
It then proceeds by exploring understanding of construction materials by means of assessing
the quality of students’ sketches and written journals. In particular, differences in the use of
these two communication tools are sought considering each student’s learning style. The 350
students of were asked to sign a consent form expressing their willingness to participate in
this study by letting the research team use their performance data for analysis without using
their names. One hundred and sixty students signed the form.
Journaling as an Effective Educational Tool for Engineers
There are many different forms of journals, the reflective type being most useful to education.
They require students to reflect upon a certain idea or concept and to pen down thoughts with
the intention of discussing, elaborating or applying an idea (Sobek 2002). For example, the
student could be prompted with the following questions, ‘What is the most interesting thing
you have learned this week and why?’, ‘How can you apply the concept you have learned in
class?’ or perhaps ‘Did you agree with the argument presented in class and why or why not?’
Another form of journal is the dialog journal where the student is required to submit a journal
on a weekly basis and their understanding accessed via feedback provided by the instructor
tasked to mark them.
There are many benefits of journaling. Sobek (2002) argue that it not only helps
students to be more expressive but also aids their thought process. Back in 1991, Zacharias
found that this thought process involves many critical learning skills such as: a) comparing,
b) contrasting, c) summarizing, d) observing, e) classifying, f) interpreting, g) hypothesizing,
h) critiquing, i) looking for assumptions, k) imagining, l) collecting/organizing data, m)

(1) 31-46
33
applying facts/principles, and n) decision-making. Additionally, teachers can also use
journals as a gauge of a student’s understanding and examine how they are processing
information (Sobek 2002).
Bloom’s TAXANOMY
There are six hierarchies based on Bloom’s taxonomy depicted in Figure 1. Bloom’s most
basic level of thinking is remembering which simply refers to the ability to recall from
memory, for example this could be a person’s name or phone number. This is then followed
by understanding or comprehension which means the ability to construct meaning from oral,
written or graphic messages. This can be demonstrated through several key actions such as
identifying, locating, indicating, explaining, generalizing, inferring, paraphrasing, predicting
or explaining. The third level is applying which refers to how someone uses what is learned
to solve authentic or novel problems. Examples of such trades include being able to construct,
categorize, compare, contrast, employ, manipulate, modify, predict, relate, show and solve
issues. Analysing is the next level in the hierarchy and involves structuring, comparing,
differentiating, distinguishing, examining and breaking down problems into various
components and showing how each of these parts relates to each other. A typical example
would be trouble shooting the faults of a piece of equipment. At this level, students are also
able to identify clues from which inferences may be drawn and indicate what their
relationships are. The next level is evaluating which involves making judgments about
relevance and importance of information based on criteria and standards via checking and
serious critiquing. An example of this would be in selecting the most effective solution.
Finally, at the top of the hierarchy we have creating and innovating by putting different
elements together in order to form a new coherent and functional entity.
Figure 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy
Measuring Students’ Learning Preferences For the discussed experiment, the Kolb
model was used to assess the learning preference of the 132 volunteering students. It consists
of two main dimensions: 1) ‘perception’ (how things are taken in) and 2) ‘processing’ (how
are things internalised). The first axis is divided into concrete and abstract while the second
axis separates people into those who learn concretely by seeing, hearing or touching and
those who prefer to perceive things abstractly through ideas, concepts or symbols.
Another dimension ‘processing’ is represented as being active on one extreme and
reflective on the other end. Based on these two domains, four learner types are identified
represented by each type as depicted in Figure 2.

(1) 31-46
34
Figure 2: Kolb’s four learning preferences
The four learning styles by Kolb has been characterised by a favourite question each,
representing the pattern or trend in learning new concepts; Type1: Why? Type 2: What? Type
3: How? Type 4: What if?
Type 1
Students who are dominant in this type are interested on establishing a feel for the subject
matter. They need to be able to answer the question of why am I learning this? And
understand the relevance of the subject taught and how it may be applicable in the future.
Type 2
Those whose preferred learning style is in this type are keen on knowing what is presented
and information transfer is an essential part of the function of educators here.
Type 3
Learners in type 3 are ‘doers’ and enjoy processing information by applying it. They not only
like doing homework but also prefer to toss the manual aside and embrace the computer
program by themselves. Hence, providing students with exposure both inside and outside of
the classroom would be very beneficial.
Type 4
This type is about self-discovery where students would continuously find an opportunity to
apply information and material into their own lives. In Type 3, the emphasis is on
establishing problem solving procedures while this type focuses on application of those
procedures across new boundaries.

(1) 31-46
35
Course Design
The structure of the course Engineering Construction had several distinctive components
each designed to offer a learning style to succeed. For example, MapleTA was useful to the
Type 3 learners, while the project created opportunities for types 1 and 4 to shine. The layout
of the course is shown is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Course Structure
WEEK TOPIC READING MAPLE TA JOURNAL PROJECT SKETCHING
21+22/
7
Equipment
Costing
Chapter 2 Time
Value of
Money
28+29/
7
Equipment
Costing
Chapter 2 Hourly
Cost
4+5/8 Power and
Safety
Chapter 3 Power-
Transmissi
on
11+12/
8
Power and
Safety
Chapter 3 Sketch 1
Due (for
Feedback)
18+19/
8
Backhoe
Excavators
Chapter 4 Backhoe
Productio
n
Submissio
n 1
25+26/
8
Chapter 4 Standard
Times
Sketch 1
Uploaded
1+2/9 Cranes Chapter 7 Crane
Capacity
Sketch 2
Due
Semester Recess (Mon 3 –Fri 10 Sept.)
15+16/
9
Mid-term exam
Deep
Foundations
Chapter 9 Phase 1 Sketch 2
Uploaded
22+23/
9
Deep
Foundations
Chapter 9 Sketch 3
Due
29+30/
9
Temp Structures Chapter
10
Submissio
n 2
Sketch 3
Uploaded
6+7/10 Bridge
Construction
Chapter
11
Phase 2
13+14/
10
Reminders,
Bridges, Oral
Present, Prep
Final Exam, Exec
Summary
Writing
Chapter
11
18+20/
10
Project Presentations
4/11 Final Exam

(1) 31-46
36
Over the duration of this course, students were given assignments consisting of:
• Six computerized MapleTA assignments (first half of the semester)
• Engineering sketches (3 compulsory), 2 voluntary (bonus marks)
• Optional journal writing (two submissions for feedback only, peer-review)
• Mid Term and Final Exam (Mid-term was optional instead of journal))
• Group Project with written report and oral presentations
• 24 Polleverywhere quizzes
As indicated, writing a class journal was optional replacing the mid-term exam. All but 19
students selected to write the journal although they acknowledged that it would be hard for
them. Right after the students received comments from their 16 tutors, a voluntary journal
writing seminar was held. Each weekly journal entry had required the students to address
three distinctive questions: 1) ‘What happened this week?’, 2) ‘What is the most interesting
thing you have learned this week and why?’ and 3) subject specific question.
The due date of the sketches was spread out as the demand increased. Tutors were trained to
assess the quality of the sketches submitted during the tutorials allowing them to give
immediate feedback. Sketches that did not pass the established criteria of minimal quality
were returned with an encouragement to improve and upload in jpg format to the common
data base. The topics of the three sketches were:
• Large off-highway truck in orthogonal views (Scale to fit it all on one page and
details required? Why are these engineering details important?)
• Trenching backhoe damaging a gas pipe causing an explosion. (How did it happen?)
• Lift plan for cranes to disassemble a steel tower (What is needed to make this
operation safe considering laws of physics?)
Discussion of Results
From the analysis of Kolb’s learning preference questionnaire, we found that students in this
course were mostly Type 3 dominant, that is to say that they are more of the ‘doers’ and
enjoy processing information through application. They prefer to toss the manual aside and
embrace the computer program by themselves as discussed earlier. The second most
dominant learning preference overall is Type 2 which refer to those who prefer a learning
style that emphasises to a certain extent on ‘spoon-feeding’ where information transfer from
lecturer to students is still a vital part of learning. Interestingly though, we also found that
students whose English is their second or third language were mostly Type 2 dominant which
could possibly suggest that the learning style of these international students (mostly from
Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong and Korea) are attributed to the learning culture
and system in the Asian region. Figure 3 compares between overall as well as learner types of
US and Korean students. This further suggests that cultural differences may have an impact
on preferred learning styles. More in -depth studies are required to further validate this
observation.

(1) 31-46
37
Figure 3: Learning Style Preference of Students
Figure 4: English Language and Learning Preference
Differences According to Learning Types
As mentioned earlier, the first sketch consisted of practicing orthogonal views of a large
dump-truck. . As expected, the quality of this first exercise varied drastically. The tutors were
expecting drawings that went beyond simple contours but sketches that conveyed an
understanding of its most essential components and functions. The question was: How can
one assert looking at the sketched vehicle that it is an off-highway vehicle able to safely
transport large amounts of rock material up a steep incline? Again, those who did not meet
some basic expectations were allowed to redo the first attempt without any penalty.
This first sketching assignment showed that, in general, Type 1 learners demonstrate a deeper
appreciation of construction equipment, albeit one as simple as a truck. From the
representative example shown in Figure 5, we can see that the student paid close attention to
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Overall
Korea
US
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
First Language
Second or Third
Language

(1) 31-46
38
several key details. Firstly, the threads of the tyres, their equal size and round shape as well
as the bolts that attach the wheels to the axles. The steps, safety railings on the upper level
and the rear-view mirror are neatly drawn as well as the drive shaft that runs into the
differential transmission box. This comes as no surprise as Type 1 learners are generally
perceived as those who are inquisitive and constantly looking to answer the question ‘Why’?
Such inquisitiveness may have prompted this group of students to really look out for
engineering details in the truck.
Figure 5: Side view example from a Type 1 learner
For the second assignment, students were required to express the result of a forensic
investigation of a gas explosion caused by a trenching backhoe damaging a buried gas line
supplying gas to a single family house. The task was to turn a written report into a visual
story of how it happened from an engineering perspective. Thus, the actual explosion was
irrelevant. This assignment yielded very interesting sketches. For example, we found that
those who indicated a preference for Type 1 learning were once again very meticulous in the
level of detail given to the excavator and the pipeline underneath the ground. Type 2 learners
showed an understanding on ‘how’ the excavator operates judging from the arrow sign which
signals the movement of the arm. Interestingly, type 3 learners have a tendency to stress on
‘what’ is happening and demonstrate an understanding of the after effect of the excavation
work for example the creation of a deeper trench. Creatively, type 4 learners were able to
demonstrate the ‘what -if’ learning style. One of them highlighted a scenario of a man
smoking while the gas leaks from the pipe into his house as depicted in Figure 6 d).
a) Student with Learning Type 1 b) Student with Learning Type 2

(1) 31-46
39
c) Student with Learning Type 3
d) Student with Learning Type 4
Figure 6: Comparison of Forensic Sketch
These observations may indeed indicate that students belonging to the different learner types
may have an impact on what they focus their attentions on when conveying their
understanding. Future sketching assignments could be designed to allow each group to exult
on their strengths while being encouraged to address the other areas as well.
Comparative Assessment of Understanding
The second part of the study involved a comparative analysis of how students expressed their
understanding of the class material in written journals and engineering sketches. This was
possible since almost all the students chose to write the class journal instead of doing a mid-
term exam. Of course, the journal for the week of September 18 focused on what was
learned about backhoe excavators while sketch No. 2, due two weeks later, focused on the
backhoe accident shown in Figure 6. The following present samples taken directly from the
original journals emphasizing what was the most important learning experience for that week:
Student with Learning Type 1:
‘Excavating with a backhoe has the potential risk of hitting an underground utility
which could cause serious accident happen. So it is necessary to mark the area where
cables or pipes are buried. Different colors are used to represent different utilities’

(1) 31-46
40
‘Firstly, operating the boom cylinders to lower the boom parts and let bucket dig in
soil. Then, moving the stick cylinder to cut soil and keep the bucket cutting soil
horizontally by adjusting boom cylinders. Too larger or small angle will reduce the
efficiency and increase the money cost, which is why we put an operator factor in fuel
cost calculation since the elevation angle is controlled by operators. In the end, lifting
the boom and making bucket open towards up for containing goods.’
‘There are four main steps of backhoe to digging a hole, first align to cut angle then
penetrate, the third one is cut and the final step is extract-lift. However, it seems hard
to know how much energy we need to accomplish all the process due the variables in
machine or soil.’
“For digging the path, the engine should be power to lift up the cylinders and arms,
and then control the bucket to dig in the soil. The action starts with lifting the
excavator arm and the bucket enter in dense soil in a desiring point and angle. Then
the bucket contract for a distance to cut the soil. During the cut action, the bucket is
suffering the friction force from each of the side of bucket, such as the soil reaction
force, friction force from the bucket inside and outside”
It is interesting to notice that the type 1 learner focuses his or her attention on “why” the
accident happened rather than on the mechanical aspects of a digging motion. Furthermore,
type 4 found the effects of the different friction phenomenon most interesting while the
“what” learner was very particular in explaining the “exact” steps needed to move the boom.
Besides the problematic status of the use of the English language, these samples do
demonstrate the difficulties students have in expressing concisely the many issues related to
the simple digging motion of a backhoe excavator. The reader may be aware of some of the
key concepts: a) engineering mechanics-trigonometry, b) friction and cutting forces, c) power
distribution, d) soil mechanics, e) production cycles, f) energy/fuel consumption and cost, g)
danger of buried utilities, h) safe operation and i) operator control.
Strategies for Assessing Deep Understanding
The comparative analysis of journals and sketches provides evidence that, as expected, the
different learning types seem to focus their attention on different aspects of what is being
studied. We also noticed that writing creates difficulties in presenting complex operations
especially when compared to sketching. Is there a way that we can develop a scale that
shows how much a student understands the material when expressed in a drawing or in
writing? The basis for such a scale could be Bloom’s Taxonomy of thinking, a model
presented in Figure 1.

(1) 31-46
41
While the journaling exercise allows us to access both engineering knowledge and
comprehension at the most basic level of hierarchy (i.e. understanding) , it is still sketching
that provides an avenue to assess engineering understanding at much higher levels in the
pyramid arguably at both the application and analysis level. For example, looking at the
extracts taken from the students’ journal a large majority of the descriptions of the backhoe
operations are very poorly written and often convey a completely different message from
what is intended some going as far as to claim that ‘buckets contract’. Descriptions are also
often scanty for example, ‘first align to cut angle then penetrate, the third one is cut and the
final step is extract-lift’ and does not provide much depth as to the level of understanding in
terms of engineering mechanics. At best, evidence from the journaling exercise shows that
students are able to only convey and express ideas at the two lowest levels of Bloom’s
hierarchy, remembering and understanding. For example, referring to the extract from learner
type 1, the student was able to identify the risk involved with using a backhoe and describe
the need for using different colours to represent different utilities. Extracts from types 2,3 and
4 are also reflective of a description on the manner in which a backhoe operates and not so
much at an analytical level where a student is expected to analyse and determine relationships
among different component parts.
Sketching on the other hand allows better identification of connections and relationships such
as how construction equipment such as the backhoe or crane functions, the different
components involved, arrangement and logic as evidenced from this course. Generally, what
was found is that the sketches produced by these students were able to convey a much deeper
understanding of their engineering knowledge where use of words has failed. In particular,
we were able to better assess their understanding of the movement of the boom and bucket,
the connections between the body and the boom and also how well students are able to
visualise potential problems occurring (i.e. gas leakage as a result of backhoe operation). The
sketching exercises also provide us with an indication of the student’s comprehension of the
use of scales and dimensions (i.e. how long should the boom be compared to the body) which
is extremely crucial in engineering communication but difficult to convey with words alone.
Correlation Analysis
Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), a correlation analysis was carried
out to identify if there is a connection between preferred learner types and journal marks.
The general formula proposed for investigation is expressed as follows:
FourthQuadThirdQuadSecQuadFirstQuadMarksJournal 43210 β+β+β+β+β= (1)
Type 1 Preference
The results of the analysis are presented in Table 2 and it was found that there is a positive
correlation between first quadrant scores and journal marks for those with a Type 1 Learning
Preference. Additionally, this conclusion is significant at p-value < 0.05. Meanwhile, this
appears to be vice versa for both the second and fourth quadrant scores with journal marks.
Table 2a: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
1 .629 .395 .234

(1) 31-46
42
Table 2b: Correlation Analysis for Type 1 Preference
Journal Firstquad Secquad Thirdquad Fourthquad
Pearson
Correlation
Journal 1.000 .441 -.107 .195 -.359
Firstquad .441 1.000 .243 .306 .058
Secquad -.107 .243 1.000 .629 .107
Thirdquad .195 .306 .629 1.000 -.169
Fourthquad -.359 .058 .107 -.169 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Journal . .026 .326 .204 .060
Firstquad .026 . .151 .095 .404
Secquad .326 .151 . .001 .326
Thirdquad .204 .095 .001 . .237
Fourthquad .060 .404 .326 .237 .
Type 2 Preference
From the results depicted in table 3, it can be observed that even though there appears to be a
positive correlation between first and second quadrant scores and journal marks, however this
correlation appears to be very weak. In addition, the results are not statistically significant as
p-value >0.05.
2 .262 .069 -0.052
Pearson
Correlation
Journal 1.000 .089 .127 -.068 -.142
Firstquad .089 1.000 -.535 -.462 -.456
Secquad .127 -.535 1.000 .513 -.309
Thirdquad -.068 -.462 .513 1.000 -.423
Fourthquad -.142 -.456 -.309 -.423 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Journal . .303 .231 .346 .204
Firstquad .303 . .000 .002 .003
Secquad .231 .000 . .001 .033
Thirdquad .346 .002 .001 . .005
Fourthquad .204 .003 .033 .005 .
Type 3 Preference
Table 4 indicates the results of the correlation analysis for those with a preference for type 3
learning styles. It appears that for this group of students, there is a statistically significant
negative association between their first quadrant scores with journal marks (r=- 0.363, p-
value <0.05). On the other hand, there is weak correlation between second quadrant scores
and journal marks.

(1) 31-46
43
3 .420 0.176 0.108
Pearson
Correlation
Journal 1.000 -.363 .091 .232 -.142
Firstquad -.363 1.000 -.168 -.189 -.029
Secquad .091 -.168 1.000 .331 -.283
Thirdquad .232 -.189 .331 1.000 -.219
Fourthquad -.142 -.029 -.283 -.219 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Journal . .004 .257 .047 .155
Firstquad .004 . .115 .088 .419
Secquad .257 .115 . .008 .020
Thirdquad .047 .088 .008 . .058
Fourthquad .155 .419 .020 .058 .
Type 4 Preference
Similarly, there is no positive correlation between first quadrant scores and journal marks for
those who have indicated a preference for type 4 learning style. Results are as shown in Table
5.
4 0.268 0.072 -0.142
Pearson
Correlation
Journal 1.000 -.106 .231 .081 -.155
Firstquad -.106 1.000 -.643 -.552 -.167
Secquad .231 -.643 1.000 .091 -.088
Thirdquad .081 -.552 .091 1.000 -.543
Fourthquad -.155 -.167 -.088 -.543 1.000
Sig. (1-
tailed)
Journal . .342 .186 .379 .276
Firstquad .342 . .003 .011 .260
Secquad .186 .003 . .365 .368
Thirdquad .379 .011 .365 . .012
Fourthquad .276 .260 .368 .012 .

(1) 31-46
44
As well, the correlation between sketches -journal marks and sketches -exam marks for this
course were explored. The summary of the results are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Based on
the analysis, it appears that there is a lack of correlation between the quality of sketching -
journal marks (ρ =0.101, p-value >0.1) and sketching –exam marks (ρ =0.3, p-value<0.05).
Only the analysis for sketching-exam marks is found to be statistically significant. However,
care must be taken in interpreting these results as there is a certain degree of subjectivity
associated with the marking of the journals and sketches.
Table 6: Correlation Analysis between Sketching and Journal Marks
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Sketches 81.4968 16.52942 126
Journal 92.0952 11.82433 126
Correlations
Sketches Journal
Pearson Correlation Sketches 1.000 .101
Journal .101 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Sketches .130
Journal .130
N Sketches 126 126
Journal 126 126
Table 7: Correlation Analysis between Sketching and Student’s Exam Marks
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Sketches 81.4968 16.52942 126
Exam 76.0587 7.95209 126
Correlations
Sketches Exam
Pearson Correlation Sketches 1.000 .300
Exam .300 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) Sketches .000
Exam .000
N Sketches 126 126
Exam 126 126
Relevance to Engineering Education
The results suggest that there is a lot of potential for using sketching as a tool to enhance
deeper understanding of construction equipment and processes as evidenced from this study.
Academic practitioners should note that there appears to be a tendency for the influence of
different learner types and the messages they wish to convey through their sketching

(1) 31-46
45
assignments, therefore assessments involving sketching would only be effective if they were
explicit in nature, particularly in terms of the expected outcomes. This study also
demonstrates the use of journaling as a tool for communication and although appears not to
be as effective in terms of assessing deeper understanding in construction it still has a major
role to play. Future research should definitely consider examining the possible synergies
between journaling and sketching to enhance better understanding.
Conclusion
Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that there are differences in preferred learning
styles which could be influenced by cultural backgrounds of students. The use of journals
alone may not be adequate to holistically measure understanding. This paper argues for the
use of sketching in engineering teaching as it allows for better identification of connections
and relationships between construction equipments as well as allows assessment of students’
understanding at a higher level based on Bloom’s taxonomy. Based on the correlation
analysis, it was also interesting to observe that only those dominant in Type 1 learning styles
had higher marks in journal writing, this opens up a whole new argument as to how sketching
assignments can be incorporated in the engineering curriculum to ensure that every student
has an equal opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of engineering.
References
Graham, R. (2004). Rhetoric for Engineers: Hand sketching, viewed 15 January 2012, URL:
http://www.tcnj.edu/~rgraham/rhetoric/handsketching. html
Hyland, K. (2002). ‘Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.’ Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Jacobs, B.J. and Brown, T.A. (2004). ‘Addressing inequities in engineering sketching skills,
creating flexible learning environments.’ Proc., 5th
Australasian Conference for the
Australasian Association for Engineering Education and the 10th Australasian Women in
Engineering Forum, pp.18-28.
Kardos, G. (1997). Drawings in engineering design, viewed on 23 January 2012,
<http://www.carleton.ca/~gkardos/88403/drawing/Drawings.html>
Lane, D., Seery, N. and Gordon, S. (2011). ‘A Paradigm for promoting visual synthesis
through feedback sketching.’ Design and Technology Education, 15, 68-90.
MacDonald, S.P. and Cooper, C.M. (1992). ‘Contributions of academic and dialogic journals
to writing about literature’ in Writing, teaching and learning in the disciplines, eds., A.
Herrington & C. Moran , Modern Language Association, New York, pp. 137–155.
Sobek, D.K. (2002). ‘Use of journals to evaluate student design processes.’ Proc., the 2002
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition,
American Society for Engineering Education, U.S.
Southavilay, V.,Yacef, K. and Calvo, R.A. (2010). ‘Process mining to support student’s
collaborative writing in education.’ Proc., Educational Data Mining Conference, 11 -13
June, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. pp. 257-266.

(1) 31-46
46
Tynjala, P. and Mason, L. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: integrating theory and practice,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Tversky, B. (2000). ‘Levels and structure of cognitive mapping.’ Proc., Cognitive mapping:
Past, present and future, eds., R. Kitchin & S. M. Freundschuh, Routledge, London.
Varley, P. and Company, P. (2008) Automated Sketching and Engineering Culture, Sketch
Tools for Diagramming Workshop, 15 September 2008, Germany.
Weekes, H. (2005). ‘Drawing students out: using sketching exercises to hone observation
Skills.’ The Science Teacher, 72, 34.
Zacharias, M. E. (1991). ‘The relationship between journal writing in education and thinking
processes; what educators say about it?’ Education, 112, 265-270.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1999). ‘Acquiring writing skills: shifting from process to outcome self-
regulatory goals.’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241-250.

The Use of Engineering Sketching and Journaling to Foster Deep Understanding of Construction Engineering

More Related Content

Similar to The Use of Engineering Sketching and Journaling to Foster Deep Understanding of Construction Engineering (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Use of Engineering Sketching and Journaling to Foster Deep Understanding of Construction Engineering