Bestselling Work-Text
22 messages in this thread
Terry,
Generally we don't advertise individual products as such on the ed issues
area. It would be easy to fill up hours of connect time just to get a bunch
of product announcements downloaded to each persons message base.
I would recommend sending a sample book to all the educational training
specialists (Cadets and MMets and possibly all ATC managers and the TTT
people { some are not ATC associated}). There is a classified section on
the GO Acad forum. CIS agreements do not permit the network to be used as a
direct sales distribution channel.
Your book and Terence Shoemaker's books are the market leaders I would
guess. But, as one of our instructors pointed out, how intimidating a text
the size of the Manhattan yellow pages is becoming. We have great tools in
Acad now but I dread the day when the manuals are the size of Catia or CV
Cadds4 docs.
I find it interesting that you guys are able to write these massive
books with a singular staff. I woulder how many folk Adesk has actually
writing the ARM? One thing I would like to see is a direct comparision of
manual verus cadd drafting in a text book where you show how it was done
with a tee square and pencil and compare to the better method available
thru use of cadd technology on screen. Where are the time savers? What are
the tricks? What is the better way.
How much theory can be taught directly at the computer? Is the drafting
board needed at all- at any level?? What are the basics in 1993??
Others- please feel free to jump in here and comment on what is the
beginning student of drafting and design in need of. What is a good
curriculum made of?
Follow the the basics—KISS <g>.
PAT
Pat,
First of all, thank you for your kind words about my book.
I agree, AutoCAD is getting big and so are the support materials that go
with it, including textbooks. At some point, author/publishers may want to
split their books into separate volumes.
>>Is a drafting board needed at all- at any level??<<
No. At one time, many years ago, I felt that it was good to expose the
student to manual drafting so that s/he would better appreciate the power
of a CAD system. But is it really necessary, given the limited amount of
time instructors have to teach the concepts that are REALLY important to
them? I don't think so.
Terry
P.S. Who are Cadets and MMets?
Anyone, What's a drafitin uh broord, board, huh? Hvenm't used one in my
program in the last 9 yrs. guess I missed the board. g Give a problem that
covers many facets of drafting and use CAD functions to solve it. Teach the
concepts (commands, etc.) to solve the problem making each more copmplex at
various levels until they know DRAFTING procedures using CAD!!! This can
be accomplished from the simple to the complex, including 3D wire, solids,
customizing, etc. Hey it even works with the shaded animation stuff. DO
NOT place barriers in front of those students. I'm amazed at what they can
accomplish when they are given the chance. Problem solving with you as the
facilitator REALLY works. I know, I know its hard to break the in front
lecture routine, but give it a try! All arrows, barbs, veggies and other
comments solicited.
Ciao, Joe
Joe,
You're 1000 percent on target! Just wish most other drafting and design
instructors in the U.S. would think like that. I like the idea of giving
the students as much as you can (both information and technology) and then
get out of their way. When I was teaching at Colorado State University, we
had professors (one in particular) that would be careful not to give the
students too much information or access to "certain" software. He was
scared that the students might learn more than him. Can you believe it!
Terry
Terry,
I can believe it. There are many tenured instructors who for some reason
or another fear having their students know more than they. I think it's a
sad state of affairs myself. But I can understand the problem. I do
production drafting 40-60 hours/week 50 weeks/year, tenured instructors
have quite a different workload. I'm sure my expertise with the program is
surpassed by some instructors, but I doubt the majority of them have had
the luxury of learning the program as a result of being cast into the pit
as it were<g>. Some instructors are coming from backgrounds where another
CAD package was being taught, they're competent with that with which they
are familiar, handing them a copy of AutoCAD and expecting them to teach it
can lead to frustration. I know of no instructor that looks forward to a
question from a student that they can't answer. The only bad instructors
are those that fail to find the answers.
An instructor unwilling to learn with or from his or her students either
has an ego problem or a fear of showing inadequacy. I can respect a teacher
that shows fear, sometimes fear is a good thing, that teacher can turn fear
to their advantage. A teacher with an ego problem just wastes a students
investment in their education.
What is your opinion on teaching 3D in a first semester course? I tend to
dismiss it as inconsequential. I think that getting my students on par with
their board performance is more critical than showing them how to draw a
widget in 3D. I see the demand for capable 2D drafters far outweighing the
demand for those that can do 3D work. I don't feel the tools for 3D work
are developed to the point that they need to be either, which may color my
opinion as well. Any and all comments are welcome.
Dennis
Hey Dennis….
Excuse me for jumoing in here but a comment on your message to
Terry. About teaching 3D, I most situations I would concurr with your
opinion about getting people up to speed in 2d first & then go to 3d
latter. Except when I went to teach 3d to a group of Architectural
Students. This was a using computers for building DESIGN course. Well the
first few times I did that course it was 2d first & then 3d later… Then I
observed my Mentor at the University do the course with 1st semester design
students. Guess what he had them doing 3d on the first day did it work.
yes it did… I can't wait to try it out myself….
How did this gentleman convince me so easily (besides the fact that
I'm a pushover <g>.).. He impressed upon me that 3d is the natural way of
the world… sounds reasonable…. In fact as a child you create with 3d
blocks… you tend to draw using simple 3d techniques… Until the day you
sit in a drafting class & learn technical drafting. Orthographic
projections. His point was 2d is a learned or taught method, whereas 3d is
more natural & intuitive.
Roger Cusson
Roger,
The irony of communicating 3D objects with 2D constructs never escaped
me. After years of LEGOs, Lincoln Logs, Tinker Toys and Erector sets, how
many kids draw chimneys on rooftops perpendicular to the plane of the roof?
The medium is unnatural<g>. That doesn't obviate the need for instruction
on how to increase a student's marketability by providing the necessary
contemporary skills.
Dennis
Roger,
I agree, 3D can be natural and intuitive. However, most modeling tools
aren't because they force you to create the model using lines and surfaces.
Most people that build things don't use lines and surfaces; they begin with
solid objects and then they cut, drill, fasten, round, etc., until that
have something meaningful. That's why solid modelers, such as AME, are far
easier to use than wireframe and surface modelers.
Here's the catch. In order to take full advantage of 3D, you need to know
AutoCAD's 2D features. Do you jump into 3D modeling at the beginning
knowing that the student won't know how to draw the polyline that needs to
be extruded or revolved?
Terry
Hey Terry…
Shure…. tackle the 2d polyline when you get to it.. Why do you
need to do the 2d polyline??? Well its like the profile of the thing that
we want to draw… Go back to the 2d only when people need to…
Roger C@V
Terry,
Why do surface modelers have to be less intuitive than solid modelers? I
like where you're going with the fabrication metaphor, but I don't need to
be a machinist to model a toaster.
Dennis
Dennis,
Sorry for taking so long to get back with you. Just returned from a few
days in Detroit.
As you know, no one sat down and decided that the industry should make
surface modelers more difficult to master than solid modelers. It just
evolved that way. Envision a relatively complex part in your mind. Would
it be tougher to define a skin that fits perfectly on the surface of the
part or would it be easier to "carve" the part using a combination of
Boolean operations? Most engineers prefer the latter technique.
Terry
Terry,
The booleans for solids are not any different for surfaces. Most geometry
would be easier to define if I could do booleans on simple surfaces. The
key is that I don't need the material information that is intrinsic with
solid modelers.
Dennis
Dennis,
In general I agree with your comments. The one statement that caught my
attention was the "3D widget". To quote one famous and one well known
educator. The famous quote is from Ralph Tyler, " use only real problems",
and the well known is Wayne somebody, " don't use mutilated blocks as
exercises". To expand on that, I think our role is presenting concepts and
allowing the students to formulate the content ie bring to class a series
of symbols or components from your engineering discipline.
Cheers,
Phil
Phillip,
I would never approach a subject using an example that has no `real
world' roots. I require my students to provide materials from their present
employment to help shape the final assignments. This is all chicken and egg
stuff though when it comes to 3D, almost nobody really uses 3D in a
production environment. I *can* provide the necessary introduction to 3D,
although I prefer to "mis"train them to duplicate their board abilities
since that is where they'll be earning their keep. I'd much rather the
follow up courses be directed at making CAD less a matter of pushing a
mechanized scribe and more of a productivity enhancement. I have yet to
put that into practice as I'm low man on the totem pole.
Dennis
Amen brother,
There in lies the failure of our educational system. The holier tha thou
attitude has hindered more students than ever. In our present vast
knowledge overload, the instructor must learn to faclitate to the utmost.
It is virtually impossible to keep up with all the material. I have found
that once you help the students start up and tell them you don't have the
answers but lets work it out in teams or group sessions the learning curve
is tremendous. I teach using this method and have been able to cover large
amounts of information in short periods of time, then go back and help the
ones who need additional guidance. Standard joke in my class is that I give
DUMB LOOKS for FREE and then ask have you checked the manual, text, etc?
How many bosses stand around waiting to help you complete your work? This
only happens in the educational environment.
In 3D wire, I gave a problem to solve and then a 20 minute demo. Broke the
group into teams of 2 and had each team "specialize" in one process then
demo to the rest of the group. Great interaction and questions are first
directed to the "specialist" then the rest of the members. Good team skills
are learned. I'm the last resort and then it usually is yeah, another DUMB
LOOK! It's not always smooth, but it weanes them. BTW I'm lousy at Civil,
any suggestions for good class project?? Oh no, please not a DL! grin
Ciao, Joe
Joe,
I have to warn my students to *not* help the students from other classes
when they are in the labs. Since so much is `breezed over' in an effort to
progress to the 3D material, there is a real thirst for the knowledge of
some of the `simpler' methods of creating drawings. The other students do
catch on and get their assignments done, but they lack the guidance
required to show them the optimal methods of creating their drawings. To me
the 3D stuff is a dog and pony show, the lack of depth in the traditional
methods gets disguised as `tommorrows tools, today'.
I do encourage the students to assist one another, admonishing them that
there will come a point for all of them where they'll need the input of a
fellow student. I don't allow it in the classroom, only in the labs. I
often repeat the fact that `the only stupid question, is the one that is
not asked'. My assignments are purposely contrived to lead to mistakes as a
means of showing error recovery technique. When they know that I set them
up to make mistakes, they tend to trumpet what they don't understand in the
hope that they've uncovered another of my little roadblocks<g>.
Dennis
Good thread folks!
Let me add Dennis that I have it that there are only TWO kinds of dumb
questions:
1. The one you do not ask when you do not know the answer.
2. The one you ask when you know the answer. <g>
The other comment to add is that the question of "productivity" needs to be
examined more than typically done I think. Specifically my concern here would
be related to looking at productivity in the "drafting" or "engineering"
department vs productivity for the company. I have been speaking for some
time now about the need to "Think corporate. Act Departmental." (with
apologies to the original global/local quote). This is in reference to the
need to increasingly plan/implement/work with a more holistic vision and
perspective. Getting back to the discussion here, I would be specifically
highlighting the rapid movement away from a focus on DRAWINGS to DATABASES.
For instance, in the area of manufacturing this is fast becoming the norm, if
not so already.
What am I jabbering about? Well in going from "Art to Part" it is interesting
to note that drafting has moved from CRITICAL to CLERICAL in function!!! The
production of 2D paper drawings is happening AFTER the part is being made, and
these are being completed for purposes of documentation, inventory, archives,
etc. NOT for the previously critical function of transfering information to
make the parts.
Not to suggest that you don't make an excellent point to balance the immediate
needs and employment factors of RIGHT NOW, but with the atrocious decline of a
skilled workforce in this country I would want to pose such questions for
education and training.
My 2 cents for now.
wayne
Wayne,
I beg to differ with number 2. In the college classes that I *still*
take, I tend to gauge the level of cognition by my fellow students and
promote further discussion on topics that it seems others are having
trouble grasping – by asking questions that *I* already know the answer to.
You know you're preaching to the choir<g>. In a CAM environment you have
the subject nailed, however, I doubt the validity of what you propound when
the subject is a complex assembly. Whether this assembly is a house, a
stretch of watermain, or a bicycle, there is too much information to convey
to have the drawing fall out of the criticality loop. I'm not disagreeing
with you, but when you start talking holistic, there's a whole lotta
applications out there. They might not be as interesting as the CAM
environment, but they do exist, and will for a long time to come.
Dennis
Dennis,
No, question, the professor had an ego problem and was afraid. Looking
back, I feel sorry for the guy, even though he made the lives of many a
living hell for a few monthse. Oh well, that's history.
What's my opinion of teaching 3D in a first semester course? Well, it
depends entirely upon the objectives of the course and the instructor. If
you're preparing individuals for a position as a 40-50 hr/wk drafting
technician, I agree with your comments. If it's a course that introduces
general drafting, design and engineering principles in a four-year program,
an introduction to 3D modeling is appropriate. Of course, you'd also have
to consider the courses that follow.
Before the individual leaves the institution, s/he'd better be familiar
with the concepts of 3D modeling and downstream benefits of using a 3D
database, especially if they're going into manufacturing. I know of
companies that began to use surface modeling so they could drive their NC
machines and solid modeling so they could drive their rapid prototyping
systems.
Terry
Terry,
Both you and Wayne are keying on manufacturing environments, which do
exist, but I'll wager I can slake the thirst of larger markets without
saying word one to my students about 3D. I'm considering using two or three
of the drawings that I start out their 2D training with as 3D assignments
later in the semester. They're easy, yet they illustrate the basic 3D
commands. I am teaching in a 2-yr institution but I don't want to limit
myself artificially. I have my FIRST engineering student who has decided to
take my class along with his regular engineering classes at the local 4-yr
college. I meet enough engineers that can't draw three views of a sphere to
make me wonder how they can do their jobs. As part of my class instruction
I tend to expound on the fact that production drafting is a grind. I
attempt to get my students to realize that another two years can make the
difference between their paycheck being their reward for hard work or their
work being the reward for their perseverence. I like the position I'm in as
far as the raw material I'm getting, I feel I can do my best work at this
level.
Dennis
Thanks for the input Dennis, I don't think we are in much disagreement on
any of this. AND afterall YOU are the one to be listened to as you are in
the classroom and with the students. What the heck do I and this Wohlers
character know about such things anyways!!! <g, r, & d>
In having these discussions it seems that comming up with the balance
between meeting student needs for employment TODAY, vs getting them
prepared and qualified for the needs of tomorrow, is most often the root of
differences in opinions and perspectives. However, if we ALL keep our
"eyes on the prize" of focusing on PERFORMANCE and getting the job done,
and maintain a central theme of LEARNING, then I am absolutely convinced
that we will continue to stay on track. My sense is that most often, as
now, we are essentially in heated agreement.
Thanks for the great humor by the way! Loved the " … three views of a
sphere.." comment, that was a new one for me.
Wish I had more time to add to this, but (lucky you) they are boarding my
plane now so must run. Glad to have you here, please continue the great
contributions.
wayne
Pat:
I can't say it's the best method, but what we've been doing the past two
years is to have a first-term freshman class called "Technical Drawing/CAD
Level I". In this class the students spend the first 4 weeks doing
"traditional" had drafting, but we just stress overall methods, like three
views, isometrics, with a little bit on lettering and linework. Then they
go into AutoCAD and get absorbed in the CAD system (or in some cases,
totally lost). I really only stress they understand how a CAD system
differs from paper drafting, and how the concepts work.
Assuming they make it through this class, they then take "CAD Level II".
This class really gets into the nuts and bolts of the AutoCAD program, and
we cover all the way up through 3D and AME. I use Terry Shoemaker's book
(sorry, Terry W.). I tried AutoShade last year, with limited success (OK,
so it was a flop). But we'll have some real horsepower on the desktop this
year, so I may jump into 3DS for a quick exercise or two. I'm hoping to get
one or two kids excited enough to want to really do some neat stuff with
it.
Hope this is helpful…
-KLF
BTW, your buddy Guy Petty has been in Costa Rica since August on sabbatical
(the lucky dog). We haven't heard from him since he left here. Hope he made
it!