McPhatter_Final Draft

THE COMEDY AND TRAGEDY OF ENGINEERING GRAPHICS:
THE LACK OF MOTIVATION IN ADULT STUDENTS
LEARNING AUTOCAD IN THE CLASSROOM
By
Janet M. McPhatter
An Applied Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
Education, Leadership + Emerging Technologies
Department of Education, Leadership + Emerging Technologies
Rocky Mountain College of Art + Design
Fall 2014

THE COMEDY AND TRAGEDY OF ENGINEERING GRAPHICS 2
Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions....................................................................................................................................... 4
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 7
Anticipated Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7
Data Collection......................................................................................................................................... 8
Interviews .............................................................................................................................................. 8
Categorization......................................................................................................................................... 16
Data And Assessment............................................................................................................................. 17
Possible Plans Of Action........................................................................................................................ 18
Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Findings from Literature Review .......................................................................................................21
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................29
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................32
References................................................................................................................................................... 36

Abstract
There is a concern of the lack of motivation in learning Engineering Graphics. The researcher
wanted to find the reasons for the lack of motivation and possible solutions to the issue by
conducting an applied research study. The proposal for this applied research study contained the
topic of interest within the Computer-Aided Design (CAD) community concerning the lack of
motivation to learn AutoCAD software, which is industry standard graphic software. Questions
as “What instructional strategies can motivate adults learning AutoCAD software?” “What are
the causes for the lack of motivation in AutoCAD students?” and “What best practices can be
gathered and applied in my role as an Engineering Technician instructor?” were identified. The
community or audience was described. The methodology chosen for the research was a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Strategies, anticipated data analysis,
possible solutions to the issue and implementation to solutions were offered.

Introduction
In a new journey of becoming an educator, I decided to teach adults. As an Engineering
Technician, I have been working with CAD for 20 years and began while being an apprentice
machinist at Army Research Lab in Adelphi, MD. Drafting is a solid part of this profession.
Without the knowledge of 2D and 3D drawings, a machinist cannot make a part or component.
This thesis project explored the pros and cons students may face in learning CAD. When
I become an instructor, I wanted to make learning worth the students’ while and ensure they get
something positive out of what I teach them. I want to contain their attention and motivation so
they want to know and learn more about CAD, because this is the program used by drafters,
designers, architects, engineers and animators in order to create drawings, layouts and models.
The project allowed me to investigate the motivation or the lack of motivation that a CAD
student may have. Reasons for the lack of motivation were researched and solutions were found
in order for students to overcome the lack of motivation they may experience.
Research Questions
The primary research question the project addressed is: What instructional strategies can
motivate adults learning AutoCAD software? My supporting questions are (1) What are the
causes of the lack of motivation in AutoCAD students? (2) What best practices can be gathered
and applied in my role as an Engineering Technician instructor?
Students have many reasons for lacking motivation; the project explored the culprits for
the lack of motivation and attempts to find strategies to address the problem. The articles
collected for the literature review were incorporated into the research as a means of enhancing or
backing up my findings. The articles give insight to motivation issues and offer remedies or

solutions that the instructor and student can use in order to better understand and learn
AutoCAD.
Literature Review
The lack of motivation in adult learning, be it learning AutoCAD or otherwise, is not a
common occurrence. Fisher (2006) conveyed that adult learner motivation is an issue in the
classroom only when the instructor cannot get students to participate or respond to questions.
Fisher (2006) also stated that the motivation is an issue when the student reaction survey at the
end of the source reveals negative comments regarding the instructor’s ability, the quality of the
instructional materials, or the ability of the instructor to engage the students.
Kopilovic, Jokic and Kropar-Vancina (2002) agreed with Fisher when it comes to
insufficient resources for introducing new technologies in lecturing, hence instructional materials
but Kopilovic et al. (2002) also felt that scholastic studies are treated as a social category and not
as an educational category which contributes to the lack of motivation on the part of the students
and to a slow rate of progress in study. They also felt that during the three years of their study,
60% of the first year students are informatically illiterate, have weak general education and weak
logical thinking (Kopilovic et al., 2002). This may be one of many reasons for negative attitudes
and poor motivation in the students. Students generally need to be ready for the course as far as a
solid general education and a good sense for technology in order to do well in the course.
The instructor does play a major role in the motivation for they are the captain of the
vessel and the students are the eager shipmates that need some kind of leadership force in order
to have a positive outcome of learning the software. The instructor needs to learn the students’
style of learning. There is no one size fits all learning style. Felder and Silverman (1998) stated
that a student’s learning style may be defined in a large by the answers to five questions which

are what type of information does the student preferentially perceive: sensory (external) – sights,
sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive (internal) – possibilities, insights, hunches, through
which sensory channel is external information most effectively perceived: visual – pictures,
diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or auditory – words or sounds, with which organization of
information is the student most comfortable: inductive – facts and observations are given,
underlying principles are informed, or deductive – principles are given consequences and
applications are deduced, how does the student prefer to process information: actively – through
engagement in physical activity or discussion or reflectively – through introspection and finally
how does the student progress toward understanding sequentially – in continual steps, or globally
– in large jumps, holistically (Felder et al., 1998). Although an instructor cannot evaluate the
entire class, especially if the class is large, he or she can spot the students having difficulties and
access them to find what kind of style they are and what teaching style is best for them.
There are several ways to improve motivation in students. Cooperative learning is a
handy method in reaching students who are in need of assistance. Cooperative learning is a
teaching strategy that encourages student success by alleviating overt competitiveness and
substituting group encouragement (Seymour, 1994). Individuals work with their peers to achieve
a common goal rather than competing against their peers or working separately from them
(Seymour, 1994). This strategy can be an asset to students who may have difficulty learning the
software or are intimidated by other students that may be more advanced. Tutorials online and
tutors are another aid for learning to build motivation. These remedies would be viable for those
students whose learning styles are sensory in nature because of the means of visuals, audio and
with a tutor, one on one communication with student and tutor. In essence the instructor needs to
understand adult learners in reference to age and culture, the characteristics of a motivating

instructor, what will motivate an adult to learn while helping the learning process, keeping a
good and positive attitude, and creating a game plan or strategies for motivating the students
(Wlodkowski, 2008).
The articles in the literature review contain vital information to enhance the
research. There are a variety of articles conveying teaching and learning styles, strategies for
motivation, multimedia ideas to enhance learning, which may motivate students to learn. The
articles obtained for the research will give the research a very sound foundation.
Methodology
The primary methodology in the research project was the qualitative method being that
the qualitative method of research focuses on open-end textual feedback (RMCAD, n.d.).
Phenomenonology category of qualitative research was used, because the lack of motivation in
adult students is an on-going occurrence and Phenomenonology focuses on a current event rather
than a person, place or past event (RMCAD, n.d.).
The community or group of interest was adults ages 18 to 50. The students’ knowledge
level of CAD and drafting were from a beginner’s level to students that have some knowledge or
experience in the discipline. The student body was very diverse covering mostly all races.
Means of collecting data was mixed methods of quantitative research and quantitative research.
Anticipated Data Analysis
This study was a mixed method research project using qualitative method and applying a
phenomenological approach because the lack of motivation in learning AutoCAD software and
most any software is an ongoing occurrence. The quantitative method was used by administering
surveys for information. Documents from the literary resources will be used in addition to the
survey.

Data Collection
Once the data was collected, categorization and coding of the information begins. The
subject matter was broken down to drafting. Drafting can be broken down to board work, which
is using the drafting board, drafting tools, pencil and pen and ink. This, although still used from
time to time, is the drafting of old. The drafting profession uses the computer to create drawings.
Software is the media of creating the drawings, hence the AutoCAD software. There are other
drafting software programs available but AutoCAD is one of the industry’s standards in drafting
and part of the focus of the research. With categorizing, software was broken down from a
couple of varieties to AutoCAD.
Interviews
Email interviews were conducted with 16 participants. They were both male and female.
Their ages ranged from late 20’s to early 60’s. Their ethnic backgrounds are diverse to include
White, African-American, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern. Their professions range from Drafters,
Designers, Architects, Engineers, and CEOs of a couple of companies, instructors and a student.
These professions had or have something to do with learning Computer-Aided Design currently
or in the past. Some said that they learned the software on the job while others received academic
instruction at an institution. A questionnaire was sent to the participants to complete. A
timeframe was given, the email of the questionnaire was returned completed and was sent back
to the researcher for data collection and analysis. Conducting the interview gave additional
information that was different than what was given through the research of articles and related
documents.

Of the 16 participants that were given the questionnaire, 6 of them returned the
questionnaire completed. The age range of these participants ranged from the early 30’s to the
early 60’s. Their geographic locations are the United States, the United Kingdom and Poland.
The questions given are as follows:
1. What was challenging or not challenging about the class or software?
2. What was the class structure: What materials were used? Was the software
accessible? What media was used in the class (textbook, overhead projector and
instructor’s computer, Internet, tutorials)?
3. What is your skill set at time of learning (beginner, intermediate, expert)?
4. Were the course materials good for learning the software?
5. Was the pace of the course adequate (too fast, too slow, okay)?
6. Was the instructor approachable, knowledge, and patient with the students?
7. Could the students express their views and ask questions with or without hassle or
tension?
8. Were assignments interesting or intriguing?
9. Did the software, the instructor or other students intimidate you? If so, why?
10. Were you bored with the class? If so, why?
11. Were students in study groups or on their own? Would the students like to be
assigned to a study group?
The interviews are as follows and the responses are in the order of the questions:
The first response was from Karen Price, President and CEO of KareCADD and
Associates, a Computer-Aided Design. In the beginning K. Price (personal communication,
September 15, 2014), felt a little intimidated because of all of the menus; there were what

seemed like hundreds of little icons each with a very distinct function. The challenge was to
remember how the various menus were broken down and where to find what (K. Price, 2014).
Price (2014) stated with respect to AutoCAD there was also the confusion of Paper space and
Model space. Price (2014), also conveys that the Software has an amazing amount of bells and
whistles and while I understand that classes are and can be taught without a student first learning
basic drafting it truly helps to make much better sense of the Software.
Price (2014), states her particular class was set up with an average of about 15 students
with student having a computer work station set up at his or her desk. The class was issued
instructional books for architectural drafting and books on engineering (K. Price, 2014). The
software in the computer came with help tutorials so the student had but to look up a function to
get a full report on how to use it and in some of the software there was a tool that would actually
show you how by moving your pointer through the steps (K. Price, 2014). The instructor would
typically give a team project in which each discipline (Architectural, Electrical, Structural, Civil
and HVAC) drawings would have to be produced (K. Price, 2014). Each assignment would find
a student rotating out of whatever discipline they were responsible for during the previous
project thereby giving each student an opportunity to learn all of the different disciplines (K.
Price, 2014).
Price (2014), says that at the time of learning the software she was a beginner, the course
materials mentioned earlier were a key component of the learning experience (although she
found that she referenced the software tutorial far more than the textbooks), and the textbooks
were user friendly. The pace of the course Price (2014) says was perfect for her, it wasn’t rushed
and there was ample time to learn to use the software proficiently. Price (2014) said her
instructor was very approachable and actually made the class fun to attend.

In the class the students were encourage to express their views and the class had Friday
meetings to discuss how things could be improved or go over anyone’s ideas (K. Price, 2014).
Price (2014) commented that the assignments were not always easy but because of the team
setting she and her classmates supported one another and made the learning more interesting and
less intimidating. Price (2014) also said that she was not intimidated by her instructor, classmates
or the software. Finally, Price (2014) states that she was not bored with the class, the students
were assigned study groups and some of the assignments were conducted individually. Price
(2014) had no preference of either study groups or individual assignments but she enjoyed
partaking in both.
The second participant is Rob Burrows, a Mechanical and Electrical CAD Operator and
Junior Designer. His statements were brief but informative. To begin R. Burrows (personal
communication, September 20, 2014) answer to question one was the software was logical which
helped making learning easier and he found 3D surface modeling to be the hardest thing about
the classes. Burrows (2014) states that no materials or presentations were used and that
workbooks with tutorials were given to the class and were utilized at the student’s own pace.
At the time Burrows was learning the software, his skill set was intermediate. Burrows (2014)
felt the books were good although felt a bit outdated but were still effective. The class pace was
fine as he learned at his own pace (Burrows, 2014). Burrows (2014) commented that the
instructor was very knowledgeable and helpful, that the students could express their views and
ask questions without hassle. There were no assignments per say, the courses overall were
interesting, the 3D more than 2D as drawings slowly progress into an object that one could relate
to rather than a symbol (Burrows, 2014). Lastly Burrows (2014) stated there was no intimidation
from the software, instructor or classmates and some aspects of the course material were tedious

and at times seemed longwinded when there were easier or quicker alternatives. Question 11 was
not answered.
The third participant is Marcin Miscicki, an Interdisciplinary Master Engineer. Miscicki
(personal communication, September 20, 2014) commented that learning one software from
another one is always something challenging and different. Miscicki (2014) states that first he
learned Inventor then Revit and both were different although they both are products made by
Autodesk the maker of AutoCAD software. Miscicki (2014) stated he was afraid of the
knowledge of other classmates and he also was afraid of not knowing the answers.
The class structure was the same, about 10 people to one trainer (Miscicki, 2014). Books
and exercises were used for the courses. The software was nice, the hardware was fast enough,
and no external media was used in class (M. Miscicki, 2014). Miscicki (2014) stated that his
current skill set depends on the software he used whether it’s AutoCAD, Civil 3D, Inventor,
Revit, Solidworks and Navisworks. All the software mentioned (except for Solidworks) are
products of Autodesk. His skill set is between advanced to expert.
Miscicki (2014) said that in the beginning of his career the learning material was good
especially when you know nothing about it. Miscicki (2014) comments that you get experience
from others experienced in the software and that you also get experience from practicing not just
from lecturing from the instructor. The pace of the course was good (Miscicki, 2014). Generally
the instructors were good except in my postgraduate studies (Miscicki, 2014). The trainer was
only good in theory but when students with some industry knowledge came, they along with me
knew more than the instructor (Miscicki, 2014).
Miscicki (2014) states that discussion was conducted in every course and sometimes the
instructor learned something during the experiments. The instructors also didn’t have a problem

when someone had a different point of view (Miscicki, 2014). Some of the assignments were
boring and some were interesting stated Miscicki (2014). Miscicki comments that if the exercise
was easy or something he knew previously, then the assignment would be boring. There were no
challenges when there were boring exercises. Miscicki never experienced any intimidation from
the software, the class or the instructor. In Miscicki’s view, as far as study groups, he feels that
its better when everyone knows each other and makes the learning environment nice but still
thinks that the individual study is better liked. He remembers a course where he didn’t know
anyone and it was awful for him.
The fourth participant is Phil Burkin, a Food Service CAD Designer. P. Burkin (personal
communication, September 16, 2014) stated that personal computer were relatively new in 1989
so (unlike today) we had very little previous experience on computers; period, let alone using
them for CAD but he found the course exciting and cutting edge. The class structure was
approximately 12 adults (age range early 20’s to mid-50’s) and the materials were pen and paper
(Burkin, 2014). The tutor used an overhead projector and a textbook from which we were given
photocopied pages (Burkin, 2014).
The skill set was a 6 week adult education introduction for beginners and the following
year Burkin took a City and Guilds introductory certificate course but by then, Burkin was a
working CAD operator for a year and took this course for qualification. As a result of my
experience I passed with a credit and a distinction and the following year took an advanced CAD
course and I only achieved 2 passes, one practical and one theoretical (Burkin, 2014). The
classes that Burkin took always had the latest version of AutoCAD and in the beginning the
course was new and exciting for him. Burkin (2014) said he found the first City and Guilds
course dull because he knew the work from actively working in CAD for a year but the advanced

course was more challenging learning LISP routines and such (Burkin, 2014). Burkin (2014)
feels as though his instructors were okay with he and the other students. He found one
interesting, the second dull (not entirely his fault) and the last instructor more informative
(Burkin, 2014). Burkin (2014) commented that the tutors were approachable but there was the
occasional awkward moments when he knew better than the instructor (the first City & Guild
course). With the introductory course the class was excited just to be drawing something on a
computer and un-informative as the first City & Guild course was, the one good thing was that
the class could choose their own assignments (Burkin, 2014). Burkin (2014) never felt
intimidated about the software, instructors nor his classmates and the only time he was bored
with a class was when he had to take the City & Guilds Introductory Certificate course and that
was due to he had a year of working with the software. Finally Burkin (2014) stated he nor his
classmates were ever assigned to group activities although he thinks that it could have been a
help to some of the students.
The fifth participant is Greg Malin, an Architectural Technician. The first AutoCAD
training class I took had several “stress” variables attached to it that most likely made it unique
unto itself (G. Malin, personal communication, September 18, 2014). The driving force from the
firm I worked for at the time was to “Learn AutoCAD or be laid off ” (Malin, 2014). The class
was hosted by KETIV, and they are still in the business of training professionals in the various
aspects of AutoCAD and Revit now. The class consisted of 6-8 coworkers (Malin, 2014). The
challenge was to learn this new material well enough to stay gainfully employed (Malin, 2014).
The students were of varying degrees of acceptance of computer drafting as the way of the
future. It would also be the first exposure to computers as a viable resource to complete tasks that
had up to this point been done manually (Malin, 2014).

Another challenge was to get comfortable with a new “tool” for drafting that promised to be so
fast it would make your head spin (Malin, 2014). The class structure consisted of a classroom at
the KETIV campus with individual computers for each of the students set up on folding tables
and hard back chairs (Malin, 2014). The instructor had a computer connected to a large screen
that all could view and then the students were to duplicate his instructed efforts on their own
systems (Malin, 2014). This was the typical procedure throughout the duration of the class…a
two-day seminar of sorts to get one familiar with all the aspects of AutoCAD with the
understanding that the students would continue to practice and investigate the software on their
own to gain a greater and more refined understanding of the program (Malin, 2014).
My current skill set status could now be considered an intermediate expert in AutoCAD
(Malin, 2014). Course materials at the time were very minimal (Malin, 2014). There wasn’t any
textbooks, minimal printed handouts, and scattered resource references (Malin, 2014). It was
very much dependent on the student to take very detailed notes(Malin, 2014) .
The pace was adequate since it was a seminar that was custom tailored to the needs of the
attendees. This did however depend on the instructor(s) and their varying degrees of in-depth
knowledge of the software program and drafting in general (Malin, 2014). Instructors were for
the most part approachable since we were buying their time (Malin, 2014). Levels of knowledge
varied but in general were enough to keep the students on a smooth progression of learning
(Malin, 2014). The instructors were patient and even went out of their way to “bond” with the
class for better interaction (Malin, 2014).
Students were expected to interact in order to make the training seminar function
properly, since this was more of a professional setting rather than a scholastic setting (Malin,
2014).No homework assignments, again more because it was a professional perspective rather

than a scholastic perspective (Malin, 2014). It would have been a lot better if there was, just so
there would have been more reference materials to refer back to at later dates (Malin, 2014).
The intimidation factor was more self-inflicted due to the extenuating circumstances that
surrounded the reason for learning this program (Malin, 2014). Learn or get laid off tends to
make one most uneasy at times (Malin, 2014) . The sheer magnitude of the AutoCAD program’s
capabilities did tend to overwhelm at times, but with continual exposure, it is not so much of an
issue as it was at the very beginning (Malin, 2014) .
There wasn’t really any time to be bored (Malin, 2014). The newness of the program and
the potential possibilities were exciting and at the same time unnerving due to a whole new set of
parameters to confront the professional “computer drafters” (i.e. aborted drawings, power
surges/outages, lost connections, etc.) (Malin, 2014). No provision for study groups, but again
this was a professional setting rather than a scholastic setting (Malin, 2014). I came from a time
that did not provide academic resources for software training…not till the late 80’s, early 90’s
did that start becoming a resource for learning (Malin, 2014).
The sixth and final participant is Robert Alan Fawbert, AutoCAD Designer. R. Fawbert
(personal communication, September 15, 2014) states that in 1985 he was employed as a
Structural draftsman by a company building oil rigs (jackets and decks). After the first few
months drawing arrangement drawings and shop details he was transferred to the methods
department in which we decided how best to split up the job to suit the facilities, shed sizes,
craneage etc. (Fawbert, 2014). After a period of approximately four years, the company decided
to introduce ActoCAD to six workstations as an experiment, for a particular contract (Fawbert,
2014). It was deemed successful and they decided to introduce it for the next contract.

Due to his specialist knowledge, Fawbert (2014) was kept on with a few other key
workers during the down time and sat in front of a CAD station with an instruction manual and
was told to learn it. Technical writers seem to speak a different language and come from a
different planet to the rest of the human race (all jargon and buzz words) so he toiled in learning
the software with the manual (Fawbert, 2014). He strove away drawing squares rectangles and
circles and trimming merrily, but the purpose was lacking (Fawbert 2014).
Fawbert was saved by a co-worker who used AutoCAD. The co-worker cut thru the
jargon of the manual, shown how to draw a line of a certain length, set snaps, rotate, change line
weights and types, and set save to 5 minutes to automatically back up the drawing so when it
crashes (and it will) recovery would be easy to obtain (Fawbert, 2014). Fawbert learned more in
30 minutes of personal training than using a book for a week (Fawbert, 2014).
Fawbert (2014) then used crane manuals to draw up the yard cranes, saving blocks of
masts, booms, cabs and tracks, plans and elevations in libraries. This was "learning with a
purpose", everything full size (Fawbert, 2014).
Fawbert (2014) then drew up all the Yard (Facility) drawings that the company used Velographs
as a basis for all the drawings, which was another CAD system.
Fawbert (2014) conveys that several years later, being unemployed he got a chance to take a
CAD course (to get a certified). The duration on the course was two weeks with a week of
practice drawings and then the exam (Fawbert, 2014).
There were around 15 students in the course and the class went thru the tutorials, the instructor
explained the lessons well (Fawbert, 2014).

In conclusion the participants were excited to learn, challenged in some parts of learning
but overcame the obstacles, and overall had a positive experience in learning AutoCAD. While
one participant may have been intimidated in class due to fear of the lack of knowledge of some
subject matter in the class, the remainder of participants were not intimidated with the software,
instructor, nor students. Some of the participants were intrinsically motivated to learn while
others were extrinsically motivated. The frustrating topic that arose was memorizing where
commands were and knowing that there is more than one way to perform a command. The
materials used to learn were simplistic consisting of a textbook. Some participants had to further
their studies for certification and became bored with repetitious course work but made it though.
The instructors were patient, knowledgeable and approachable. They were available to guide the
students and give assistance. Some participants were part of project or study groups while others
learned individually. The participants that were taught individually didn’t mind learning in that
manner or being in a group learning setting. Participants that were in groups enjoyed the
experience but had not preference whether to work independently or in a group.
Categorization
Once the AutoCAD software was categorized, coding some of its basics as far as
workspace environment, layout design and the commands to create the drawings were done. This
is deemed important because the software is simple yet very complex and there may be
something that may or may not have been overlooked as to why there may be a lack of
motivation in some students to learn the software. This could be that the software tends to be
complex and may be intimidating to some learners.
There is another part to the research, which is the main attraction and that is motivation.
Motivation was broken into two parts. One is high motivation in the students learning the

software and the other low motivation in the students learning the software. In the high
motivation sub category the researcher developed a list giving reasons or the catalyst that gives
high-motivated students their push and desire to wanting to learn. These reasons may be the
passion or desire for the drafting trade, interest in Architectural and Engineering disciplines, or
the student may have interest in construction or interior design. The reasons for the low
motivation in the students was categorized whether it is the complexity of the software,
remembering AutoCAD commands, or any reasons that may be discovered through the data
collection.
Data and Assessment
In the collection of data and assessment of the applied research, implementation of the
researcher’s findings to discover solutions to the initial problem that began the research was an
important part of the research process. When collecting data from adult in the field, a variety of
reasons could arise that is the cause of the lack of motivation in wanting to learn. Some possible
reasons that may occur were addressed. These reasons could be students being intimidated by the
AutoCAD software and intimidated in general for the lack of certain knowledge needed for the
course, students that have prior experience in drafting and CAD but need to take the course as a
requirement of their undergraduate program, the students’ learning styles, and the instructor’s
attitude and his or her teaching style. Possible solution plans that could aid to the motivation
issue were given.
The AutoCAD program can allow the operator to do many things from drawing simple
lines to creating buildings, intricate electronic and mechanical components, bridges, roads,
vehicles, site plans, and most anything an engineer, architect or designer can think of. There are
many commands to achieve many functions of the software. With AutoCAD there are many

avenues to go in order to make a single object. One method of calling a command is typing the
command at the command prompt, the ribbon as set in Microsoft Word containing many
commands and functions, toolbars with icons depicting functions or commands and pull down
menus where a user can find commands also. In using AutoCAD commands, there are four ways
to do one command. Remembering commands to type or where the commands are located can be
a challenge to some students. With learning the workspace interface, layout setup, establishing
layers and scaled views and the printing layout as well as drawing, dimensioning and applying
text could frustrate a student learning the software thus giving a student a lack of motivation to
learn. The software for some students can be overwhelming.
Possible Plans of Action
From the data collected from literary resources and survey participants, a plan of action
can be implemented as in conducting cooperative learning where the instructor can assign groups
and they learn by not being competitive but being a team reaching a common goal. Research on
the benefits of cooperative learning has shown an increase in academic achievement, positive
attitudes towards learning and increased student satisfaction (Seymour, 1994). Cooperative
learning can also aid in social benefits, which can promote group socialization and cohesiveness,
decreased prejudicial attitudes, encouraging risk taking, fostering of self-esteem and increased
ability to see others perspective (Seymour, 1994).
Several solutions were implemented for the lack of motivation that was addressed. One
solution was the instructor in the beginning of the class will imply that the students are
professionals and everyone in the class should treat one another with respect and professionalism
(Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). The instructor should prioritize the value of the course and
hold the students accountable for reading assignments, drawing assignments and the group

project (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). The instructor should emphasize feedback from the
students for any questions they may have and give the class a sense of ease that the instructor is
approachable (Wlodkowski, 2008). The instructor can present new material and talking the
students through the commands (Seymour, 1994). Upon completion of the lecture the students
get a drawing assignment to apply what was taught in the lecture (Seymour, 1994). The
instructor can assign project groups and every student in the group will play a role in the project.
The finished project can be a final exam. Periodically the students must report to the instructor
individually and collectively on their progress on the project and their general studies. This plan
could also work for students that are intimated in general with the class.
Another possible factor for the lack of motivation in students are students that have prior
CAD and drafting experience that must take the class as a requirement of their undergraduate
program. These students may stress that they aren’t challenged enough in the class. With these
students the instructor must be creative in keeping these students satisfied with their learning
experience.
A possible plan for these students was to have the instructor connect with the student’s
personal interest with relation to the course. The instructor can find some interests the student
may have and use this information to assign the student work for extra credit. The instructor
could have the students go to museums or buildings of interest and do a critique on the facility or
a scavenger hunt and the student looks for certain objects that relate to different drafting
disciplines. With the items collected, the student can create a collage or presentation discussing
the items and why they either chose them on their own or the items from the scavenger hunt and
what they found interesting in them. Another plan is to give the student a more challenging

AutoCAD project. Seeing that the class is an introduction course in two dimensional CAD, the
instructor can give the student an assignment or project in three dimensional drawing.
An important part of the research process is the collection of data and assessment of the
research that the researcher will partake in the near future along with the implementation of the
researcher’s findings to discover solutions to the initial problem that began the research. In
collecting data, a variety of reasons could arouse that is the cause of the lack of motivation in
wanting to learn. Possible reasons were addressed that may occur. The reasons could be students
being intimidated by the AutoCAD software and intimidated in general for the lack of certain
knowledge needed for the course, students that have prior experience in drafting and CAD but
need to take the course as a requirement of their undergraduate program and the instructor’s
attitude and his or her teaching style. Possible solution plans that could aid the motivation issue
were given.
In the beginning of the class the instructor can imply that the students are professionals
and everyone in the class should treat one another with respect and professionalism (Carnegie
Mellon University, n.d.). The instructor should prioritize the value of the course and hold the
students accountable for reading assignments, drawing assignments and the group project
(Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). The instructor should emphasize feedback from the students
for any questions they may have and give the class a sense of ease that the instructor is
approachable (Wlodkowski, 2008). The instructor can present new material and talking the
students through the commands (Seymour, 1994). Upon completion of the lecture the students
get a drawing assignment to apply what was taught in the lecture (Seymour, 1994). The
instructor can assign project groups and every student in the group will play a role in the project.
The finished project can be a final exam. Periodically the students must report to the instructor

individually and collectively on their progress on the project and their general studies. This plan
could also work for students that are intimated in general with the class.
Implementation
Implementation is part of the research process. To implement a solution, the researcher
found possible plans to execute in the improvement of motivation in the students to learn the
software. In traditional research the research is conducted, findings are made, hypothesis is
answered or not and the data is published.
In the future the researcher can utilize the findings and solutions in possible class instruction.
Findings of the Literature Review
In the search in finding motivational issues I came across what is spatial visualization
along with discovering a student’s learning styles. Spatial visualization or spatial ability is the
capacity to understand and remember the spatial relations among objects (John Hopkins
University, n.d.). For instance, using a map to guide a person though an unfamiliar city, merging
into high-speed traffic, and orienting one’s self to him or her environment (as when a person is
learning their way around a new school building) are all activities that involve spatial ability
(John Hopkins University, n.d.). For prospective engineers, architects, designers and drafters
spatial visualization can be the ability to visualize the interactions of parts and components
(John Hopkins University, n.d.).
Spatial intelligence and spatial ability are considered critical factors in geographical
learning and their subset (Ahmed, Mahjoubi, Feng & Leach, 2004). Ahmed et.al, (2004) states
that it’s through enhancing the spatial visualization skills that individuals can improve their
communicating when planning, designing and implementing CAD techniques. Ahmed et. al
(2004) also states that it is important to develop an understanding of the process of learning,

individuals’ learning styles, and spatial visualization abilities and the influence of these factors
on an individual’s way of thinking. In addition to this notion, according to the behavioral theory,
a major factor affecting learning is a subject’s motivation (Ahmed et.al, 2004).
The motivation can be seen as learners’ expected benefits, such as increased knowledge
or improved skill (Ahmed et.al, 2004). Since students made the conscious choice to attend
school, it will be assumed that the motivation is already in existence and learning for
improvements starts taking place (Ahmed et.al, 2004). So generally in the beginning of a class
students are, for the most part, motivated to take the class and wanting to learn.
There are two types of motivation for adults. The first is extrinsic or external motivation.
Adult learners are often externally motivated by such factors as better jobs, increased
promotional opportunities and higher salaries (Ference & Vockell, 1994). The second is intrinsic
or internal motivation. Ference and Vockell, (1994) states that adults are internally motivated by
such factors as self-esteem, recognition, confidence, career satisfaction, and an overall quality of
life. Because adults place value on learning when they perceive that the new skill or knowledge
will improve their overall quality of life, the adult learner is usually willing to take an active part
in the learning process by engaging in the tasks necessary to obtain a goal (Ference & Vockell,
1994). Since adults are life-centered, they tend to invest considerable energy determining the
benefits derived from learning and the consequences of not learning (Ference & Vockell, 1994).
Another factor is the element of challenge which many motivational theories suggest that
individuals prefer activities involving and optimal level of challenge (Ference & Vockell, 1994).
Activities should not be so easy and mundane that the learner gets bored, nor do difficult that the
task seems impossible to accomplish (Ference & Vockell, 1994). Ference and Vockell, (2004)

iterate that although motivation is listed as an early step in the process of instruction, motivation
must be maintained throughout the demonstration or the course.
Barriers are a prevalent part of the lack of motivation. Stephen Lieb, (1991) conveys that
some of the barriers against adults participating in learning include lack of time, money,
confidence, interest, lack of information about opportunities to learn, scheduling problems and
problems with child care and transportation. Lieb (1991) concurs that if the students do not
recognize the need for the information (or has been offended or intimidated), all of the
instructor’s effort to assist them to learn will be in vain and that the instructor must establish
rapport with participants and prepare them for learning thus providing motivation.
Learning styles are also a factor for motivation. To understand how a student learns and
processes the information given is a vital element that an instructor needs to be aware of in order
to get the information across. From the study entitled Learning and Teaching Styles In
Engineering Education, Richard M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman, (1988) that there are
dimensions of learning styles. Felder and Silverman, (1988) expressed that learning in a
structured educational setting may be thought of as a two-step process involving the reception
and processing of information. Felder and Silverman, (1988) further expressed that in the
reception step, external information (observable through the senses) and internal information
(arising introspectively) become available to students, who select the material they will process
and ignore the rest and this processing step may involve simple memorization or inductive or
deductive reasoning, reflection or action, and introspection or interaction with others for which
the outcome will be either learned in one sense or not learned in another. Felder and Silverman
speak of the various learning styles there are and the influences of the writings of Carl Jung,
David Kolb and Howard Gardner to develop a learning style model that pertains to engineering

education. The model is broken into five categories for which include sensing and intuitive
learners, visual and auditory learners, inductive and deductive learners, active and reflective
learners, and sequential and global learners.
Felder and Silverman, (1988) define sensing and intuitive learners as sensors gather and
observe data through the senses; intuitors involves indirect perception by way of in conscious—
speculation, imagination and hunches. Sensors like facts, data, and experimentation; intuitors
prefer principles and theories (Felder and Silverman, 1988). Felder and Silverman, (1988) define
explain the ways people receive information may be divided into three categories of visual –
sights, pictures, symbols, and diagrams, auditory – sounds and words, and kinesthetic – taste,
touch, and smell. Visual learners remember best what they see, auditory learners remembers
much of what they hear and more of what they hear than say and while kinesthetic learning
involves both information perception (touching, tasting, smelling) and information processing
(moving, relating, doing something active while learning) (Felder and Silverman, 1988). While
the category is visual-auditory and kinesthetic is a sensory element, kinesthetic is mostly
perceived with the active and reflective learners (Felder and Silverman, 1988). In deductive
learners prefer ready-made answers that someone delivers and inductive learners learn better
when they discover the answers themselves (QPlace.com, n.d.). Active learners feel more
comfortable or is better at, active experimentation whereas reflective learners like to be able to
have an opportunity to think about the information being presented as in lectures (Felder and
Silverman, 1988). Sequential learners prefer a logically ordered progression of learning and
mastering the material as it is presented whereas global learners do not learn in a steady
predictable fashion (Felder and Silverman, 1988). Global learners tend to make intuitive leaps
and may be unable to explain how they came up with the solutions (Felder and Silverman, 1988).

Global learners like to make decisions intuitively and like putting things together in an intuitive
manner (MyCollegeSuccessStory.com., n.d.).An instructor with a struggling student should take
in consideration all learner types.
Besides spatial ability or spatial visualization and understanding learning styles play a
significant role in the motivation to learn AutoCAD, other factors play a role as well and some
factors may, at some point, intertwine with the two previous factors discussed.
Taking into consideration the characteristics of adults learners’ (set habits, a great deal of
pride, a rational framework of values, attitudes, etc.) motivation to learn is different from those
of children (Chao, 2009). To further complicate the adult learners’ situation, they also have to
perform their individual culturally roles as spouse, worker and citizen and perceive themselves as
responsible for his or her own individual life (Wlodkowski, 1993 pp. 5 cited by Merriam, 2007
and Chao, 2009).
Factors for adults to participate in learning are social relationships; making friends and
meeting others, external expectations; complying with the wishes of someone else with authority,
social welfare; desire to serve others and/or community, professional advancement; desire for a
job enhancement or professional advancement, escape/stimulation; to alleviate boredom and or
to escape home or work routine, and cognitive interest; learning for the sake of learning itself
(Merriam and Caffarella, 1991 cited by Chao, 2009).
Demographic factors also play a role in motivation and learning which include age and
sex that influences whom participates and does not participate (Chao, 2009). Socioeconomic
conditions and education relates to a person’s background and place in society so the less
wealthy people often times participate less due to their socioeconomic situation and prior
education (Chao, 2009). The degree of this happening in welfare state countries, where education

is free or highly subsidized is potentially less than in developing and non-welfare state countries
(Chao, 2009).
There may be some students that feel they know the software and the course. This person
may either be a true expert who is truly a competent, productive, self-assured, genuine expert or
the partially informed person pretending to be an expert (Tucker-Ladd, 1996). Feeling that they
know so much may tend to make these students less challenged in the course or bored which
may give off a negative attitude and lack of motivation to succeed. These students tend to
dominate classroom discussions with long winded answers and comments that demonstrate his or
her extensive knowledge of a particular subject (Jones, 2007). These individuals can monopolize
the discussion to the point where other students tune out as soon as they open their mouths
(Jones, 2007). This can make for a negative learning environment and the instructor need to take
on this matter early on in the class.
An instructor’s teaching style in motivating students is just as important and the
instructor learning the student’s learning style. Natasha Quinonez (2014) discusses teaching
styles and states that a teacher’s teaching style is based on their educational philosophy, their
classrooms’ demographic, what subject area (or areas) they teach, and the school’s mission
statement. Quinonez (2014) also conveys that there are two key approaches that teaching styles
fall into and they are teacher-centered approach and student-centered approach.
The main focus in teacher-centered approach is the idea that a teacher is the main
authority figure (Quinonez, 2014). The students are there to learn through lectures and direct
instruction and the focus is mainly on passing tests and assessments (Quinonez, 2014). The
instructor’s role in this approach is to pass on the knowledge and information needed to their
students (Quinonez, 2014). Direct Instruction is a category under this particular approach which

defines traditional teaching of lectures and instructor-led demonstrations (Quinonez, 2014). The
idea is that only the instructor can give students the knowledge and information they need to
succeed (Quinonez, 2014). There are three teaching models under direct instruction which are
formal authority where the instructors are the sole person of authority and leadership (Quinonez,
2014). They have more knowledge than the students and hold a higher status over their students
(Quinonez, 2014). Classroom management is usually based on traditional methods involving
instructor-designed rules and expectations. Another is the expert where the instructor is the
know-everything in the classroom model (Quinonez, 2014). Students are nothing more than
empty vessels designed to receive the knowledge being given by the instructor (Quinonez, 2014).
The last model is the personal model where the teacher leads by example (Quinonez, 2014). The
instructor shows the students how to find the information and how to understand it and the idea
is that the students will learn by watching and copying what the instructor does exactly as the
instructor does it (Quinonez, 2014). The teacher-centered approach usually works well in
teaching children where children do not have prior experiences.
The second approach is the student-centered approach in which the instructor is still the
authority figure but the student plays an active role in what is learned (Quinonez, 2014). This
approach better suits the teaching of adults. Here the idea is that the instructor will advise and
guide the students down the learning path (Quinonez, 2014). Assessment involves informal and
formal methods of tests, group projects, portfolios and class participation (Quinonez, 2014). The
instructor continues to assess a student’s learning even throughout the lesson (Quinonez, 2014).
The students are learning the information the instructor is giving and the instructor is learning
how best to approach the students (Quinonez, 2014). There are two subcategories in the approach
which are inquiry based learning and cooperative learning (Quinonez, 2014).

In inquiry-based learning the focus is on letting the student explore and actively
participate in learning with the instructor being a guide giving the students advice and supporting
their efforts (Quinonez, 2014). Students are expected to participate and play and active role in
their own learning and under this subcategory there are three models (Quinonez, 2014). The first
is the facilitator which the instructor will work under an open classroom model (Quinonez,
2014). The idea will be to place a stronger emphasis on the instructor-student relationship by
joining the student in the learning process (Quinonez, 2014). The students’ progress will be
loosely guided and the instructor will work on encouraging the students to be more independent,
more exploratory, and involve more hands-on learning (Quinonez, 2014). The second is a
personal model similar to the personal model from the direct instruction but these models are
learning with the students so that they can learn to explore and experiment with new ideas
(Quinonez, 2014). In this way students can learn that making mistakes are part of the learning
process as they watch their instructor make mistakes also (Quinonez, 2014). Hopefully the
students will see that people can learn from their mistakes (Quinonez, 2014). The third model is
the delegator. The delegator has the most hands-off approach of all the modeled teaching
methods (Quinonez, 2014). The idea is to encourage autonomy in the student’s learning process
with the instructor explaining what is expected, gives the students the resources needed, and
spends the rest of the time acting as a resource of sorts (Quinonez, 2014). The students are
actively involved in their own learning process with no real guidance from the instructor
(Quinonez, 2014).
Cooperative learning is the idea of the teaching style is a community (Quinonez, 2014).

Much of the classwork are group projects and the students are responsible for their own learning
and development (Quinonez, 2014). The philosophy of this style is that the students learn best
when interacting with their peers (Quinonez, 2014). Under is subcategory are two models.
The facilitator is just like the facilitator under the inquiry-based learning but the
difference is that there is a higher focus on group projects rather than individual work (Quinonez,
2014). The instructor still uses an open classroom and the focus is still on increasing the
students’ independence, hands-on learning and exploration but instead of the student undergoing
this process alone or with the instructor, the student will also have a group of his or her peers
joining him or her in the learning process.
Like the delegator model from the inquire-based learning subcategory, the delegator
model acts as a resource to the students with a hands-off approach to the students’ learning
(Quinonez, 2014). There is a higher focus on group projects compared to the inquiry-based
learning delegator model but overall the say key ideas are behind both models (Quinonez, 2014).
Recommendations
There are many recommendations available to aid students who lack motivation to learn
AutoCAD. The recommendations, although general, can be a significant aid in giving struggling,
negative, unmotivated students the desire to want to learn. To begin, the instructor must create a
class environment that will interest and inspire students. Common factors of motivating
environments are as follows:
• Giving positive reinforcement
• Conveying enthusiasm
• Creating personal responsibility for learning
• Fostering supportive interpersonal relationships in class

• linking individuals intrinsic self-interest with the class
• Structuring experiences that show real-world relevance (Mills, 2010)
Wlodkowski (2008) developed a model entitled Motivational Framework for Culturally
Responsive Teaching which presents four motivational conditions which are:
1. Establishing inclusion: Creating a learning atmosphere which students and teachers
feel respected and connected to one another.
2. Developing attitude: Creating a favorable disposition toward the learning experience
through personal relevance and choice.
3. Enhancing meaning: Creating challenging, thoughtful learning experiences that
include students’ perspectives and values.
4. Engendering competence: Creating an understanding that students are effective in
learning something they value (Wlodkowski, 2008).
Wlodkowski (2008) talks about motivating adults to learn and many strategies on how to
achieve this. The book also discusses his framework and the development of a motivational
course map. Using the components of the Motivational Framework an AutoCAD instructor
can use from the text a combination of 60 motivational strategies to create a course map for
the course.
An instructor must develop a plan or some strategies to be prepared for students that may
have a motivational issue. There are many strategies to consider but these mentioned will be
great for using in an AutoCAD course. Talking to the student: take the student aside for a private
conversation to communicate the concerns of the instructor and have the instructor collect more
information from the student (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). Drawing on campus resources
and the instructor’s understanding of the student’s situation the instructor can judge about

whether the student may benefit from the instructor’s help or the help of professional services on
campus (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). Show relevance to student’s academic and
professional lives: Students are more motivated to work hard if they are learning to their overall
study (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). The students will also exert effort in a course if they
anticipate an eventual payoff in terms of their professional lives (Carnegie Mellon University,
n.d.). Highlight real-world applications of knowledge and skills: have students apply what they
are learning to real-world contexts (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). Connect to students’
personal interests: motivation is often enhanced when instructors connect course matter to
students’ interests (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). For example, a chemistry professor might
link a lesson on chemical transformations of carbohydrates to students’ interest in cooking
(Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.). An instructor can also allow students some degree of choice
as in giving the students the opportunity to choose topics of projects that connect the course
content to their outside interests and passions (Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.).
An instructor can also show their passion and enthusiasm about the subject (Carnegie
Mellon University, n.d.). Even if students are not initially attracted to or interested in the
material, by the instructor demonstrating his or her own enthusiasm, he or she can raise the
students’ curiosity and motivate them to find out what excites the instructor about the subject
(Carnegie Mellon University, n.d.).
Cooperative learning is another motivational tool. Cooperative learning is a teaching
strategy that encourages student success by alleviating overt competitiveness and substituting
group encouragement (Seymour, 1994). With cooperative learning, individuals work with their
classmates to achieve a common goal rather than competing against one another or working

separately from each other (Seymour, 1994). Cooperative learning can spark camaraderie
throughout the course making the students enjoy working together (Seymour, 1994). The effect
of cooperative learning on academic achievement has been well documented and research
suggests that cooperative learning produces greater student achievement than traditional learning
methodologies (Seymour, 1994). A review completed by Robert E. Slavin (1984) found that 63%
of all cooperative learning studies analyzed shown increases in academic achievement (Seymour,
1994).
There are some ways to deal with the know-it-all students as well. There are five ways in
dealing with difficult students as follows:
1. Directly involve students in a needs analysis for the course. Ask them what they feel
is most important to cover in the class and their idea on how best to accomplish the
learning goals. Ask advanced students for input on course design.
2. Talk one-on-one with resistant or negative students before class as mentioned earlier.
The instructor should ask if there is anything he or she can do to help them get more
out of the class. The simple act of asking may help the student to open up more, but
be aware, these students may think the instructor is singling them out.
3. Incorporate multiple, varied and specific opportunities for the students to apply the
material in ways that relate to their lives. This too was mentioned earlier. Ask, “How
does the material specifically relate to what you (the student) do each day?”
4. At key points, ask unmotivated students to share their experiences. Showing an
interest in what they say may stimulate the students to take more of an interest in
class.

5. The instructor needs to re-evaluate the communication of the course objectives to the
students. (Mills, 2010).
Conclusion
Motivation is defined as the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented
behaviors (Cherry, n.d.). Motivation causes us to act; it involves the biological, emotional, social
and cognitive forces that activate behavior (Cherry, n.d.). A person must have an open mind and
some sort of driving force to make motivation happen for them.
In order for motivation to happen when a student is learning software like AutoCAD,
certain factors must be in place. These factors can be the accessibility of the software and
computers, the course materials (textbooks or manuals, online or DVD tutorials, overhead
projectors, etc.), or practice time. In investigating the situation on motivation if a student does
not have an understanding of spatial visualization or the ability to understand spatial relations
among objects and view objects in certain perspective then the student can become frustrated
when drawing and learning the software which in turn will decrease their motivation in learning.
Memory also plays a part in learning AutoCAD software by knowing where and how to access
the commands in order to create, modify and plot drawings. With AutoCAD there is more than
one way to command the software to function. For example, to make a circle an operator can
type the word circle, click an icon that represents a circle, look on the ribbon c In researching this
matter one big factor for student motivation is human interaction of the instructor and the
classmates.
One big factor for motivation is human interaction of an instructor and classmates.
The instructor must have the necessary tools, the right learning environment and a positive
attitude in order for a student to keep his or her motivation to learn the software. The instructor

must be approachable, accessible and patient with each student. Upon the first few classes the
instructor must attempt to evaluate the students’ learning styles and be able to take the
information he or she assessed of the students and instruct in a way that will be helpful to all
the students though it may be a challenge depending on the length of the class. Students must
also communicate with the instructor if they have a problem in learning. The instructor is there
for assistance and a guide to successful completion of the course.
Students interacting with one another are also a good motivator. When students are in
study groups or group projects they work together and help one another through their projects
and assignments. Cooperative learning can be very helpful in this matter where the students are
responsible for their learning, interact with their peers and feel as though there is no competition
amongst one another. Everyone has a common goal and that is to learn the AutoCAD software.
Interviews conducted during the research have shown in some cases that some students
prefer to learn individually and are simply motivated by learning AutoCAD for the software can
accomplish many 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional drawings and renderings. Other participants
in the research commented that they had to be extrinsically motivated to learn AutoCAD in order
to keep their jobs. This is a means of motivation but learning AutoCAD or any subject should be
more intrinsically motivating in which the student wants to learn the software and not have to
learn it or experience a negative repercussion.

References
Ahmed, V., Mahdjoubi, L., Feng, X., Leach, M. (2004). The learning of CAD and construction:
technical abilities or visual? International Journal of IT in Architecture, Engineering and
Construction, 2(1), 7-18.
Bhavani, S. K., Joh, B. E., (1996). Exploring the unrealized potential of computer-aided drafting.
Retrieved from http:// http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/240000/238538/p332-
bhavnani.pdf?ip=129.6.212.18&id=238538&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=19938F
09717B438F%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38
B35&CFID=418422427&CFTOKEN=68686251&__acm__=1409852387_75b716b81a7
121eb6e023d52b8292d77
Carnegie Mellon University: Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence. (n.d.). Students lack
interest or motivation. Retrieved from
http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproble/stratlackmotivation/
lackmotivation-01.html

Chao, Jr., R. Y. (2009). Understanding the adult learners’ motivation and barriers to learning.
Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/1267765/Understanding_the_Adult_
Learners_Motivation_and_Barriers_to_Learning
Cheng, N. Y. (1997). Teaching CAD with language learning methods. Retrieved from
http://www.front. cc.nctu.edu.itw/Richfiles/5219-acadia97-lang-cheng.pdf.
Cherry, K. (n.d.). What is motivation. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.about.com/od/
mindex/g/motivation-definition.
Crown, S. (1999). Web-based learning: enhancing the teaching of engineering graphics.
Retrieved from http://www.imej-wfu.edu/Articles/1999/2/02/printer.asp.
Felder, R. M., Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineer Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Ference, P. R., Vockell, E. L. (1994). Adult learning characteristics and effective software
instruction. Educational technology, 34(6), 25-31.
Fisher, C. (2006). Asynchronous learning and adult motivation: Catching fog in a gauze bag..
Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/233/asynchronous-
learning-and-adult-motivation-catching-fog-in-a-gauze-bag/page2
Jones, T. (2007) The know-it-all, question hog and daily debater: Dealing with difficult students.
Retrieved from http://www.thetrainingassociates.com/Main/Documents/
News%20For%20Trainers/Dealing %20Difficult%20Students.pdf
Kopilovic, S. B., Jokic, T., Kropar-Vancina, V. (2002). Introducing it in teaching the
engineering design graphics at the faculty of graphic arts, university of zagreb, croatia.
Retrieved from http://www.designsociety.org/publication/29681/introducing_
it_in_teaching_the_enginee_ ring_design_graphics_at_the_faculty_of_graphic_

arts_university_of_zagreb_croatia
Lieb, S. (1991). Principles of adult learning. Retrieved from http://carrie-ekey.com/handouts/
Rotterdam2012/Eu_Coaches_Conf2_R.H_Day_1_A4.pdf
Merriam, S. & Caffarella, R. (1991). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Mills, W. (2010). Cultivating student motivation. Retrieved from http://www.wku.edu/
teaching/booklets/cultivatingmotivation.pdf
MyCollegeSuccessStory.com. (n.d.). Empowering academic, college, and career success:
College success/study skills glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://mycollegesuccessstory.com/college-glossary.html
Quinonez, N. (2014). Different teaching styles and how they affect your students. Retrieved from
http://www.udemy.com/blog/teaching-styles/#_=_
RMCAD. (n.d.). Research & assessment approaches: week 3 – presentation 2: qualitative
methods. Retrieved from http://student.online.rmcad.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=
lms.activitiesAsignment&activityId=87113&deliveryId=117343.
RMCAD. (n.d.). Research & assessment approaches: week 3 – presentation 3: quantitative
methods. Retrieved from http://student.online.rmcad.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=
RMCAD. (n.d.). Research & assessment approaches: week 3 – presentation 4: secondary
research. Retrieved from http://student.online.rmcad.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=
QPlace.com, (n.d.). What is your learning style? Retrieved from http://www.qplace.com/
howqplaceworks/trained-facilitator/what-is-your-learning-style/

Seymour, S. R. (1994). Operative computer learning with cooperative task and rewards
structures. Journal of Technology Education, 5(2), 40-51.
Tucker-Ladd, C. (1996) 6 difficult types of people and how to deal with them. Retrieved from
http://www.psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/04/15/6-difficult-types-of-people-and-
how-to-deal-with-them/
Wlodkowski, R. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation: A comprehensive guide for teaching all
adults (3 ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McPhatter_Final Draft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to McPhatter_Final Draft

Similar to McPhatter_Final Draft (20)

McPhatter_Final Draft