Do Engineering Students Still Value Physical CAD Education? A Review Perspective on Relevance in The Digital Era

The rapid transition to online and blended learning in the field of engineering education has prompted significant enquiries regarding the significance of the ongoing traditional Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) instruction. This review assimilates findings from service, randomised controlled trials, mixed-methods studies and systematic reviews to assess students’ perceptions, learning outcomes and skill acquisition across various delivery modes. Research shows that online CAD courses are flexible and have similar academic performance to in person classes, but students always prefer physical laboratories or studios because they provide immediate help, opportunities to work together and opportunities to improve psychomotor skills. Meta-analysis of virtual labs and immersive technologies (AR/VR/XR) shows that they can greatly improve understanding of concepts and motivations (Hedges' g ≈ 0.68). However, it is stressed that these technologies should be used in conjunction with, not instead of, hands-on experiences. Studies on Project-Based-Learning (PBL) show that when physical team work environments work well together with digital tools, students learn more technical and soft skills. Integrity and assessment challenges remain in remote environments, although adaptive strategies help to reduce risks. Overall, the results point to a hybrid model as the best option. Physical CAD education is still important and relevant, not as a legacy practice but as a strategic base for social learning and real-time design. Online modules that expand access and depth of preparation should be added. This mixed approach is in line with the goals of Industry 4.0, ensuring that future engineers are both digitally fluent and have hands-on experience.

Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Education, Online vs. Face-to-Face Learning

1. Abualadas, H. M., & Xu, L. (2022). Achievement of learning outcomes in non-traditional (online) versus traditional (face-to-face) anatomy teaching: A mixed-method systematic review. Clinical Anatomy, 35(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23742 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). (2023). Engineering education during COVID-19: Lessons learned. American Society for Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). (2024). Industry 4.0 and engineering education: Preparing future engineers. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, K. (2018). Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 12(2), 1–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Asgari, S., Trajkovic, J., Rahmani, M., Zhang, W., Lo, R. C., & Sciortino, A. (2021). An observational study of engineering online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 16(6), e0255127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Autodesk. (2024). Educator resources for CAD and digital manufacturing. Autodesk Education. https://www.autodesk.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education. Educational Research Review, 9, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Berselli, G., Bilancia, P., & Luzi, L. (2020). Project-based learning in CAD/CAE courses: Enhancing student engagement. International Journal of Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 14(3), 1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00687-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bojcetic, N., Valjak, F., Zezelj, D., & Martinec, T. (2021). Automatized evaluation of students' CAD models. Education Sciences, 11(4), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Bright, K., & Vogler, J. (2024). Learning online vs. learning in person: A mixed-methods approach. Online Learning, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.4565 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Brink, H., Kilbrink, N., & Gericke, N. (2022). Teach to use CAD or through using CAD: An interview study with technology teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(3), 957–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09770-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Castillo-Manzano, J. I., et al. (2025). The use of extended reality (XR) in higher education: A systematic review. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01092-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cheung, Y. Y. H., et al. (2023). A randomized controlled experiment for comparing face-to-face and online teaching during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1160430. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1160430 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Dagman, A., & Wärmefjord, K. (2022). An evidence-based study on teaching computer aided design in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010029 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ediyanto, E., et al. (2025). Triangulation in educational research: A literature review. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 900, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Gaha, R., Nicolet, P. M., Bricogne, M., & Eynard, B. (2021). Teaching experiments for engineering education based on cloud CAD software. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21). https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.556 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Huang, T. C., & Tseng, H. P. (2025). Extended reality in applied sciences education: A systematic review. Applied Sciences, 15(7), 4038. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15074038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Huang, Y., & Tseng, C. (2025). XR technologies in engineering education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 195, 104678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Johnson, M. D., & Ye, K. (2017). Data collection in CAD modeling using think-aloud techniques. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 10271, 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58500-0_24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kazui, T., & Kurtoğlu, F. (2022). Investigation of effectiveness of hybrid learning on academic achievements: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(4), 249–265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kumar, A., & Gorai, J. (2025). Effectiveness of augmented reality and virtual reality interventions on learning outcomes: A meta-analysis in higher education. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01106-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Leopold, C., Górska, R., & Sorby, S. (2001). International experiences in developing the spatial visualization abilities of engineering students. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 5(1), 81–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Li, J., & Liang, X. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis. PLOS One, 19(12), https://doi.org.10.1371/journal.pone.0316269 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Murillo Manrique, M. F., & Sánchez Ayte, J. A. (2025). A systematic review on innovations in computer-aided design in engineering education. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(3), 1804–1814. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v14i3.30250 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Nik Roseley, N. R., Kasolang, S., Amedorme, S. K., Saad, N. H., Kausalyah, V., & Makhsin, S. R. (2021). The effectiveness of industrial training during Covid-19 pandemic: Perspective of undergraduate students of mechanical engineering. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 17(4), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i4.16223 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Nuryanto, A., Pardjono, Y., Ngadiyono, Y., & Widodo, S. F. A. (2025). Implementation of project based learning in 3D CAD education to support machine design drawing skills. ICEI 2024 Proceedings, 888, 122. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-360-3_122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Onyeaka, H., Passaretti, P., & Miller Friedmann, J. (2024). Teaching in a pandemic: A comparative evaluation of online vs. face-to-face student outcome gains. Discover Education, 3, 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00140-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Peng, X., et al. (2020). Evaluating the effect of a student-centered pedagogical approach on students' skills and knowledge in CAD courses. ASME 2020 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Vol. 9, Engineering Education). https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2020-23985 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Ramírez de Dampierre, M., et al. (2024). Project-based learning in engineering: A systematic review. European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2245670 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sun, R. (2023). Comparative study of online learning and face-to-face learning. SHS Web of Conferences, 180, 04006. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202318004006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Talha, M., et al. (2025). Lowering barriers to CAD adoption: A comparative study of augmented reality-based CAD (AR-CAD) and a traditional CAD tool. ASME 2025 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC-CIE2025). ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2025-166080 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tomeo-Reyes, I., et al. (2025). Online laboratories in engineering education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12800-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Webster, J. (2017). CDIO and project-based learning in mechanical engineering. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--27995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Wu, Y., et al. (2022). Gamified virtual labs: Shifting from physical environments for low-risk interactive learning. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2022-0281 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Zohaib, H. S., Chansa, T., Adiyono, A., & Uthman, S. L. (2023). A comparative study of online and physical education in Pakistani higher education institutions: Preferences, effectiveness, and challenges. International Journal of Instructional Technology, 20(2), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.33650/ijit.v2i1.9363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• An Adaptive Joint Filtering Approach to Wireless Relay Network for Transmission Rate Maximization
• IoT-Integrated Mercury Substance Detection System for Cosmetic Product Safety
• Design and Implementation of Solar PV-Based Railway Microgrid for Linke Hofmann Busch Coaches
• Cost Control Techniques on Civil Engineering Projects in Oyo State, Nigeria
• Strength and Predictive Modeling of Corn Cob Ash Blended Concrete Using Multi-Output Artificial Neural Network Approach