Man In India, 97 (19) : 195-204 © Serials Publications

A REVIEW ON AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATION IN

ENGINEERING DRAWING CLASSROOMS
Dayana Farzeeha Ali1, Marlissa Omar2, Mahani Mokhtar3, Nornazira Suhairom4,
Abdul Halim Abdullah5 and Noor Dayana Abd Halim6

Augmented reality (AR) has been used in education especially in the process of teaching and
learning. Many courses including engineering drawing has implemented this technology in order
to enhance students’ learning experiences as well as to maximize the transfer of knowledge.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to review recent research on the application of augmented
reality in engineering drawing classrooms. In order to achieve the purpose of this paper, various
electronic databases were used to find articles published between 2000 and 2016. Few combinations
of keywords were used to search related articles such as augmented reality, engineering drawing,
engineering education and teaching approach. Findings from the review showed that the use of
augmented reality can enhance learning experiences and improve students’ skills when dealing
with complex concepts in engineering drawing. Various researchers have produced augmented
reality teaching aids to support the teaching and learning process of engineering drawing.
Consequently, as more research is done on the technology of augmented reality, the findings will
definitely make engineering drawing classrooms more effective. Thus, the teaching aids developed
from the research will increase the standard of teaching and learning and this process will benefit
both educators and students.
Keyword: Augmented Reality, Engineering Drawing.

INTRODUCTION
Teaching approaches have evolved tremendously following the trend in technology
enhancement. Computer-assisted multimedia based environment has received
innumerable attention as numerous researches has been carried out in order to find
initiatives in integrating new technology for the development of teaching and
learning tools (Rafi and Samsun, 2007). With the emergence of various teaching
approaches, educators have ample choices to decide on which technology to be
integrated in their classrooms. Integration of technology in classrooms can promote
effective promote effective teaching and learning process which in the long run
can improve students’ skills as well as increase their understanding.
Nevertheless, differences in the affordances offered by each media plays an
important role to determine the effectiveness of classroom application. The
popularity of augmented reality (AR) has initiated developers and researchers to
produce educational applications using this technology. The media comparison of
factors influencing students learning as investigated by Radu (2014) showed that
learning processes involved latest technology had positively affected students

1,2,3,4,5,6
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. E-mail: dayanafarzeeha@utm.my, marlissa.utm@gmail.com,
p-mahani@utm.my, p-nazira@utm.my, p-halim@utm.my, noordayana@utm,my
196 MAN IN INDIA

learning experiences. The study involved comparison of three types of media

namely; non-interactive media (books, videos), interactive non-AR media (Desktop
PC, Smartphones, Interactive Surfaces, Wifi/Kinect) and interactive AR media
(Smartphones with GPS, Smartphones with GPS and Camera, Desktop PC with
Webcam, Head-mounted Display with camera). Subsequently, the finding showed
that interactive AR media had the strongest influence towards students’ learning
processes. Undoubtedly, using modern or latest technologies in teaching and
learning processescan increase students’ skills and performance (Mayer, 2002;
Maizam, 2002).
This paper also presents results or empirical data from each journal article
which involved augmented reality application for engineering drawing classes.
Finally, based on the discussion and analysis, the direction and recommendations
for future research regarding application of augmented reality in engineering
drawing course are also recommended at the end of this paper.
METHODOLOGY
This paper surveys presents multiple publications on the use of augmented reality
in engineering drawing classrooms. The use of augmented reality as teaching aid
in engineering drawing classroom has been actively studied previously by various
researchers. Hence, this paper offers a review on the augmented reality teaching
aids that have been developed for engineering drawing course. The corpus for
literature review was searched and selected through online databases such as Science
Direct, Elsevier, Springer, IEEE Explore, Google Scholar and others to get
conference and journal articles discussing related issues. The combination of
keywords used to search for related articles were augmented reality, engineering
drawing, engineering education and teaching approach. Besides, this paper also
includes sources from books obtained from UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia’s library.
AR APPLICATION IN ENGINEERING DRAWING CLASSROOM
Augmented reality has been implemented in engineering drawing classroom since
recent years. Many researchers have studied the advantages of this technology to
improve students’ performance in engineering drawing as well as to train their
spatial abilities or visualization skills which are critical for their studies and future
career. Engineering students need to have visualization skills for them to be able
to master engineering courses. Furthermore, engineering drawing also plays an
important role towards the efforts in improving their visualization skills (Bertoline
et al., 2005). Thus, the use of suitable teaching approach is required. Recent study
has shown that augmented reality has proven to be one of the best alternatives to
cover these issues. Hence, few augmented reality teaching aids used in engineering
drawing classroom are presented in this paper. Table 2 shows meta-analysis of the
use of augmented reality in engineering classrooms.
 TABLE 2: META-ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF AR IN ENGINEERING DRAWING COURSE
Learning Tool Year AR Approach Aim Sample Size Software Content Weaknesses/ Strength
Used Featured
AR-DEHAES 2010 Desktop Augmented Develop students’ 24 Freshman Solidwork, 3D Models Weaknesses:
Reality spatial skills Mechanical Brainstorm – Requires programming
Engineering eStudio Strength:
Students – Cost-effective tools for classroom
usage
L-ELIRA 2011 Desktop Augmented Help students to learn 25 Freshman AutoCAD, 3D Models Strength:
Reality sketching, designation Mechanical Build AR – Do not require programming
and normalization of Engineering knowledge
mechanical elements Students – Cost-effective tools for classroom
usage
AR Models 2011 Dekstop Augmented To compare between 35 Engineering AR Tool 3D Models Weakness:
Reality the use of Tangible Students Kit Plus – Require programming knowledge
models and AR models which limits the range of developers
in helping students to Strength:
learn engineering drawing – High engagement with AR model
during class
Augmented 2012 Desktop Augmented To improve visualization 27 Freshman Not 3D Models Strength:
Reality Reality skills of freshman Engineering mentioned – Allow greater freedom for students
Enhanced engineering students Students to advance at their own pace
Exercise Book – Do not require programming
knowledge
– Cost-effective tools for classroom
usage
Educ Holo 2014 Mobile Augmented Provide better perception 24 Freshman AutoCAD, 3D Models Strength:
A REVIEW ON AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATION IN...

Reality of 3D shape and to Mechanical Augment – Do not require programming

improve skills of 2D Engineering knowledge
orthographic views and Students – Cost-effective tools for classroom
perspectives usage
197
198 MAN IN INDIA

Table 2 shows five augmented reality teaching aids which have been developed
since 2010 for an engineering drawing course. Among all these teaching aids, it
can be seen that the trend in the usage of augmented reality approach has changed
during recent years. Most of the developers since 2010 until 2012 used desktop
augmented reality and it has changed starting from 2014 where the developers
started to use mobile augmented reality. This was due to the increase in the number
of smartphone users each year since smartphones have become an inseparable part
of people’s lives and (Smura, Kivi and Toyli, 2009). As a result, smartphones
market has maintained a positive growth for 10 years consecutively (Berita Harian,
2015). Mobile augmented reality is deemed suitable as teaching aids for engineering
drawing course in engineering faculty because most students own at least one
smartphone. A study by Camba, Contero and Salvador-Herranz (2014) also showed
that most students preferred to use mobiles or tablets as compared to desktop. The
convenience and mobility factors of smartphones make them a better choice than
desktop. If augmented reality is used in desktop, the PC needs a webcam attached
to it however, not all institutions can provide each student with a PC attached with
a webcam since it is costly. In contrast, mobile augmented reality allows students
to use the teaching aid individually. By implementing mobile augmented reality,
students can use their own smartphones during classroom which is more
convenience to them and there is no financial burden to the institutions. Other than
that, they can have the access to the teaching material regardless of where there
are.
Development of engineering drawing augmented reality teaching aids is listed
in table 2 and each of the products has own purpose to serve. However, majority of
them aims to improve students’ visualization skills and provide better perception
of 3-dimensional shape of an object. M educators of this course face the same
problem which is to clearly illustrate the relationship between 3-dimensional shapes
and their 2-dimensional dimensions when using only one presentation approach
(Veide, Strozheva and Dobelis, 2014). However, augmented reality can facilitate
students to attain the skill fast. This is because learning using augmented reality
helps to enhance users’ perception of the real world (Figueireido, et al., 2014).
Other than that, the overlaid virtual objects can help to provide the additional
information in which the real world cannot provide. Thus, these properties make
this technology relevant to be implemented for the purpose of improving
visualization skills of the users.
The number of samples used in most of the studies was in the range of 24 to
35. However, majority of the researchers used less than 30 samples during the
tests. The software used in the production of the applications wasdivided into two
types namely the modelling and augmented reality tools. The developers and
researchers used Solidwork, and AutoCAD for modelling software. As for
 A REVIEW ON AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATION IN... 199

augmented reality tools, they mostly used Brainstorm eStudio, BuildAR, AR Tool
Kit Plus and Augment. However, AR Tool Kit Plus requires programming
knowledge in order for developers to be able to produce an augmented reality
application since it only targets C++ programmer (“AR Tool Kit Plus 2.1.1”, 2016).
In addition, Brainstorme Studio can use augmented reality function since, they
also developed a plugin is developed using C++ and it requires programming
knowledge. However, the use of Build AR and Augment in developing augmented
reality applications does not need a programming background.
The augmented content in the application is surprisingly similar to each other
since all of them use three-dimensional models as the overlay materials. This is
because according to Reiners et al. (1999), the use of three-dimensional models is
a great training alternative as compared to the use of written instructions or
electronics hypertext manuals. Furthermore, by observing three-dimensional
objects, students can observe from havedifferent viewpoints which can help them
to understand spatial relationships. Chen et al. (2011) also mentioned in his article
that it was hard to explain three-dimensional geometry just by drawing on paper or
blackboard. Thus, traditional ways such as using two-dimensional images to teach
spatial skills does not allow students to optimize their spatial transfer skills because
it only focuses on developing memory skills (Ursyn, 2013). Hence, the use of
virtual three-dimensional objects superimposed into the real environment enable
students to experience real objects viewing experience and it is a good way to
teach spatial skills or visualization skills to engineering drawing students.
These applications have their weaknesses and strength which can be considered
for an improvement in future engineering drawing augmented reality application.
Two applications require programming knowledge in their development process
namely; AR-DEHAES and AR models. Thus, not all researchers can develop
augmented reality environment teaching tools without programming knowledge
while using AR Tool Kit Plus and Brainstorm eStudio. However, there areisstill a
variety of free augmented reality studio that does not require programming
knowledge such as Augment, Build AR, Aurasma and others. This ensures the
potential for this technology to be widely experimented by various researchers
from various fields.
Based on the review made on these augmented reality teaching tools, few
weaknesses and strength can be found. The weaknesses found on some of these
teaching tools are some of them require programming knowledge for the
development process. It can be a weakness to researchers with lack programming
knowledge and can restrict them from experimenting with this technology. However,
there are some teaching tools that has been developed using tools that does which
do not require programming knowledge so beginners can experiment with this
interactive technology. In addition, in order to makethe teaching tools available to
200 MAN IN INDIA

institutions, the cost should be affordable. Based on the review, some tools are still
affordable and therefore, the price will not be a burden to educational institutions.

EFFECTIVENESS OF AUGMENTED REALITY IN ENGINEERING

DRAWING CLASSROOMS
The augmented reality materialshighlightedin the previous section shows great
impact towards students’ learning and visualization skills. This section providesa
comparison between the augmented reality materialsand students’ visualization
skills and learning. Table 1 shows the comparison of gain scores and pre-test vs
post-test of Mental Rotation Test (MRT) and Differential Aptitude Test of Space
Relation (DAT:SR) between experimental and control groups.
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF GAIN SCORES AND PRE-TEST VS POST-TEST OF MRT AND
DAT:SR BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS
Gain Pre-Test vs Post = Test
Mental Differential Mental Rotation Differential
Rotation Aptitude Test Test Relation Aptitude
Test of Space (MRT) (DAT:SR) Test of Space
(MRT) Relation
(DAT:SR)
AR–DEHAES 8.04 (5.31) 9.29 (4.08) t = 3.541 t = 4.49
p = 0.0009 p = 0.00004
< 0.05 < 0.05
Experimental Augmented Reality 8.77 (5.54) 6.44 (5.44) t = –4.435 t = –2.749
Group Enhanced Exercise p = 0.00 p = 0.008
Book < 0.05 < 0.05
AR–DEHAES 4.64 (4.36) 5.12 (7.13) t = 1.88 t = 1.718
p = 0.0664 p = 0.0924
> 0.05 > 0.05
Control Augmented Reality 6.86 (5.75) 2.00 (5.01) t = –1.957 t = –0.664
Group Enhanced Exercise p = 0.06 p = 0.511
Book > 0.05 > 0.05

Based on table 3, the comparison between experimental and control groups of

AR-DEHAES and Augmented Reality Enhanced Exercise Book showed that the
use of augmented reality gave positive outcome towards the enhancement of
students’ visualization skills especially in mental rotation (AR-DEHAES: t = 3.451,
p < 0.05; Augmented Reality Enhanced Exercise Book: t = -4.435, p < 0.05) and
space relation (AR-DEHAES: t = 4.49, p < 0.05; Augmented Reality Enhanced
Exercise Book: t = –2.749, p < 0.05). The findings for control group were contrary
to the findings for the experimental group where there were no significant
differences for both test among students in control group for both augmented reality
 A REVIEW ON AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATION IN... 201

materials. According to Reiners et al. (1999), while learning engineering drawing,

manipulation of virtual models was more effective than the use of traditional method
such as hypertext or written instructions. Consequently, majority of students enrolled
in engineering drawing course inunderstanding shapes of the geometry and this
issue was closely related to their lack of visualization skills. Thus, the manipulation
of virtual models can help improve their visualization skills by enhancing their
perception of real world (Figueireido, et al., 2014). Jun and Jing (2012) mentioned
that any conventional method was no longer suitable in this age due to its boring
and heavy-duty teaching style which resulted in students losing their interests and
felt bored throughout the lessons.
CONCLUSION
This paper has elaborated on the great potential of augmented reality to be used in
engineering classrooms. Manipulation of virtual materials in real environment
through the use of this technology creates a new learning environment among
teachers and students. This experience can increase their interests towards learning
and students have additional assistance in exploring nature and shapes of geometry
objects. In addition, visualization skills can be trained during teaching and learning
with the use of suitable and appropriate teaching materials. Hence, the use of this
technology helps teachers to transfer the knowledge more effective and efficient
as compared to the traditional method of teaching. The review inthis paper only
the use of augmented reality in technical education field, but its integration in
other educational areas is also easy and possible. In conclusion, augmented reality
can help improve students’ learning and visualization skills as well as provide
teachers with interactive teaching materials with high rate of knowledge transfer.
References
Anastassova, M., Panëels, S., and Souvestre, F. (2016). Methods for User Involvement in the
Design of Augmented Reality Systems for Engineering Education. In Embedded Engineering
Education (pp. 81-91). Springer International Publishing.
de Ravé, E. G., Jiménez-Hornero, F. J., Ariza-Villaverde, A. B., and Taguas-Ruiz, J. (2016).
Diedric AR: a mobile augmented reality system designed for the ubiquitous descriptive
geometry learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 1-23.
Doshi, A., Smith, R. T., Thomas, B. H., and Bouras, C. (2016). Use of projector based augmented
reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1-15.
Fjeld, M., Fredriksson, J., Ejdestig, M., Duca, F., Bötschi, K., Voegtli, B., and Juchli, P. (2007,
April). Tangible user interface for chemistry education: comparative evaluation and re-design.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp.
805-808). ACM.
Haouchine, N., Dequidt, J., Berger, M. O., and Cotin, S. (2013). Deformation-based augmented
reality for hepatic surgery. Studies in health technology and informatics, 184.
202 MAN IN INDIA

Kaufmann, H., and Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with
collaborative augmented reality. Computers and Graphics, 27(3), 339-345.
Sudana, A. O., Setiawan, A., and Pratama, I. P. A. E. (2016). Augmented Reality for Chemical
Elements: Periodikar. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 90(1),
88.
Barr, R. E. (2013). Engineering Graphics Educational Outcomes for the Global Engineer: An
Update. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 76(3).
Martin Gutierrez, J., and Meneses Fernandez, M. D. (2014). Applying Augmented Reality in
Engineering Education to Improve Academic Performance and Student Motivation.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(3), 625-635.
Chen, Y. C., Chi, H. L., Hung, W. H., and Kang, S. C. (2011). Use of tangible and augmented
reality models in engineering graphics courses. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 137(4), 267-276.
Contero, M., Gomis, J. M., Naya, F., Albert, F., and Martin-Gutierrez, J. (2012). Development
of an augmented reality based remedial course to improve the spatial ability of engineering
students. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Rafi, A., and Samsudin, K. A. (2007). The relationship of Spatial Experience, Previous
Mathematics Achievement, and Gender with Perceived Ability in Learnng Engineering
Drawing.
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533-1543.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85-139.
Maizam, A., Thomas, R., Black, and David, E., Gray. (2002). Attitudes towards sketching and
drawing and the relationship with spatial visualization ability in engineering students.
International Education Journal. 3(3), 165-175.
Bertoline, G. R., Wiebe, E. N., Miller, C. L., and Nasman, L. O. (2005). Fundamentals of Graphics
Communications. New York McGraw-Hill.
Veide, Z., Strozheva, V., and Dobelis, M. (2014). Application of Augmented Reality for teaching
Descriptive Geometry and Engineering Graphics Course to First-Year Students. In Joint
International Conference on Engineering Education and International Conference on
Information Technology (ICEE/ICIT-2014) (pp. 158-164).
Murthy, M., Babu, K. M., Jebaraj, P. M., Maddinapudi, L. R., Sunkari, V., and Reddy, D. V.
(2015). Augmented Reality as a tool for teaching a course on Elements of Engineering
Drawing.Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 295-297.
Azodo, A. P. (2016). Attitude of engineering students towards engineering drawing: A case
study. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(5).
Figueiredo, M. J., Cardoso, P. J., Goncalves, C. D., and Rodrigues, J. M. (2014, July). Augmented
reality and holograms for the visualization of mechanical engineering parts. In 2014 18th
International Conference on Information Visualisation (pp. 368-373). IEEE.
Mohd Safarin Nordin and Muhammad Sukri Saud. (2007). Kajian Awal Terhadap Kebolehan
Ruang Pelajar-pelajar Pengajian Kejuruteraan di Sekolah-sekolah Menengah Teknik. Paper
presented at the 1st International Malaysian Educational Technology Malaysian Convention,
Senai, Johor Bahru.
 A REVIEW ON AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATION IN... 203

Horii, H., and Miyajima, Y. (2013). Augmented Reality-based Support System for teaching
Hand-drawn Mechanical Drawing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 174-180.
Kosse, V. (2005). Engineering drawing as a global language for engineers. In 4th ASEE/AaeE
Global Colloquium on Engineering Education (p. 1232). Australasian Association of
Engineering Education.
Potter, C., and van der Merwe, E. (2001). Spatial ability, visual imagery and academic performance
in engineering graphics. In International Conference on Engineering Education, Oslo,
Norway.
Garmendia, M., Guisasola, J., and Sierra, E. (2007). First-year engineering students’ difficulties
in visualization and drawing tasks. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3),
315-323.
Cincou, A. (2013). An Innovative and Interactive Approach to Teaching Industrial Drawing to
Engineering Students. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association.
Zivkovic, M., and Zahar, M. (2014). Quality Improvement of Engineering Education: Design of
an Application for Learning Technical Drawing.Center for Quality.
Baronio, G., Motyl, B., and Paderno, D. (2016). Technical Drawing Learning Tool Level 2: An
interactive self learning tool for teaching manufacturing dimensioning. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education.
Berryman, D. R. (2012). Augmented reality: a review. Medical reference services quarterly, 31(2),
212-218.
Kipper, G., and Rampolla, J. (2012). Augmented Reality: An emerging technologies guide to
AR: Elsevier.
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., and MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent
Advances in Augmented Reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 34-47.
Sorby, S. A. (2009). Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics
Journal, 63(2).
Lee, K. (2012). Augmented Reality in Education and Training (Vol. 56, pp. 13-21). Boston:
Springer US.
Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., and Grover, D. (2014). Augmented Reality
in Education: Cases, Places, and Potential. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1-15.
Doi:10.1080/09523987.2014.889400.
Milgram, P., and Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE
TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
Azevedo, T. C., Tavares, J. M. R., and Vaz, M. A. (2013). 3D Reconstruction and Characterization
of Human External Shapes from 2D Images using Volumetric Methods.
Cohen, C. A., and Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking
using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33,
63-71.
Garmendia, M., Guisasola, J., and Sierra, E. (2007). First-year engineering students’ difficulties
in visualization and drawing tasks. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3),
315-323.
204 MAN IN INDIA

Liarokapis, F., Mourkoussis, N., White, M., Darcy, J., Sifniotis, M., Petridis, P., Lister, P. F.
(2004). Web 3D and augmented reality to support engineering education. World Transactions
on Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1), 11-14.
Ferguson, C. W., Ball, A., McDaniel, W., and Anderson, R. (2008). A comparison of instructional
methods for improving the spatial-visualization ability of freshman technology seminar
students (Vol. 69, No. 03).
Ursyn, A. (2015). Visualization as Communication with Graphic Representation.
ARToolKitPlus 2 .1.1 (20 16, May). Retrieved from http://handheldar.icg.tugraz.at/
artoolkitplus.php
Chen, Y. C. (2006, June). A study of comparing the use of augmented reality and physical
models in chemistry education. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM international conference
on Virtual reality continuum and its applications (pp. 369-372). ACM.
Henderson, S. J., and Feiner, S. (2009, October). Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality
for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel carrier turret. In Mixed and
Augmented Reality, 2009. ISMAR 2009. 8th IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 135-144).
IEEE.
Dünser, A., Walker, L., Horner, H., and Bentall, D. (2012, November). Creating interactive
physics education books with augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian
computer-human interaction conference (pp. 107-114). ACM.
Camba, J., Contero, M., and Salvador-Herranz, G. (2014, October). Desktop vs. mobile: A
comparative study of augmented reality systems for engineering visualizations in education.
In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Yusof, A. H. (2015, February 13). Pengguna Malaysia belanja RM8.74b belitelefon
pintartahunlalu. BeritaHarian. Retrieved from http://www.bharian.com.my/node/34819
Jain, P., Manweiler, J., and Roy Choudhury, R. (2015, May). Overlay: Practical mobile augmented
reality. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems,
Applications, and Services (pp. 331-344). ACM.