http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
Content and strategies for teaching computer-aided drafting
The purpose of this study was to determine the content and strategies appropriate for computer-aided drafting (CAD) in Technology Education at the secondary level. The Delphi technique was used to identify group consensus by a panel of fifteen education experts in the area of CAD. The panel was nominated by the state coordinators of Technology Education in the five states identified as being the most innovative in CAD practices. The experts generated eight-six statements as a result of the Round One instrument. The statements from Round One were used in the Round Two instrument. In the Round Two instrument, the panel of experts were asked to indicate on a five point Likert-type scale the degree to which they "agreed" or "disagreed" to each statement. The scale ranged from (one) "disagree" to (five) "agree". Also, they were to indicate the time allotment (where applicable). Upon receipt of responses from the Round Two instrument consensus was calculated for each statement - Consensus was interpreted as seventy-five percent of the panelists responses being with one interval on a five point Likert-type scale. The Round Two instrument was modified to become the Round Three instrument. Changes included the elimination of two similar statements, the addition of thirteen new statements, and the modification of one statement to increase clarity. These changes increased the number of statements to ninty-seven. In Round Three, the panelists were asked to compare the modal response from Round Two with their own response for each statement. If a change was needed, they were asked to make the revision. Also, they were asked to rate the additional items offered by the panel during Round Two. Consensus was calculated for each statement in Round Three. The following conclusions were drawn from the finding of the study. Drafting curriculum at the secondary level was in a transition. The content, strategies, and time allotments utilized were wide ranging and reflected differences in instructional facilities, student objectives, and program goals. CAD and traditional drafting complement each other and should be taught concurrently.