INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 98

"Navigating the Complexities of CAD Assessment: Challenges and

Solutions for High School Students in Harare Schools."

Blessing Hove

St Ignatius College, Zimbabwe

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1401010

Received: 09 January 2025; Accepted: 13 January 2025; Published: 05 February 2025

Abstract: This study provides an in-depth examination of the multifaceted challenges teachers encounter when assessing CAD

designs in Harare schools. The research focuses on the diversity of student abilities and learning approaches, highlighting the

complexities involved in creating fair and equitable assessments. It explores how educators can balance the need to evaluate both

advanced and novice students effectively, ensuring that all students receive a fair assessment of their skills. A significant focus is

placed on the inherent subjectivity involved in assessing creative CAD projects. The study investigates the tension between

fostering student innovation and adhering to standardized evaluation criteria. This balance is crucial in maintaining both the

integrity of the assessment process and the encouragement of student creativity. The study also proposes practical solutions and

strategies aimed at helping educators navigate these complexities. this study aims to contribute to the broader understanding of

CAD education in high schools, offering insights that can help educators enhance their assessment practices and better support

student learning in the field of computer-aided design.

Key words: CAD Assessment, Creative Evaluation, High school education.

I. Introduction

The integration of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) into high school curriculums has become an essential component of fostering

creativity and technical proficiency in students. However, assessing CAD designs presents unique challenges, particularly in

diverse educational settings such as high schools. Educators are tasked with evaluating a wide range of student abilities, from

beginners to advanced designers, while maintaining fairness and accuracy in their assessments. The complexity is further

compounded by the subjectivity inherent in assessing creative projects, where innovation and adherence to standardized criteria

must be balanced. This study explores the various challenges teachers face when assessing CAD projects, with a specific focus on

how these challenges can be addressed to ensure fair and effective evaluation. This research aims to enhance the quality of CAD

education in Harare schools, ultimately supporting both student learning and creativity in the field of design.

Statement of the Problem:

The assessment of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) projects in high schools, particularly in Harare, is fraught with challenges due

to the diverse range of student abilities, learning approaches, and creative solutions. CAD encourages a variety of problem-

solving methods, meaning that students often arrive at different solutions based on their individual skills, perspectives, and

creative thinking. This diversity complicates the task of developing a fair and consistent assessment framework. Although

marking schemes may include sections to assess creativity, measuring this creativity remains difficult due to the varying

dimensions and approaches that students bring to their designs. The subjective nature of evaluating creative work in CAD creates

a tension between fostering innovation and applying standardized criteria, making it challenging to ensure that all students are

fairly evaluated. This study seeks to explore these challenges and provide practical solutions for educators, ensuring that

assessments can accurately capture both technical proficiency and the creativity inherent in CAD projects.

Research questions

1. What are the main challenges faced by educators in Harare schools when assessing Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

projects, particularly in terms of varying student abilities and learning approaches?

2. How can educators effectively balance the evaluation of both technical skills and creativity in CAD projects, while

ensuring fairness and consistency across diverse student solutions?

3. To what extent can standardized marking schemes adequately capture and assess the creativity of students in CAD

projects, considering the diverse and multidimensional nature of student solutions?

4. What practical strategies can be implemented by educators in Harare schools to navigate the subjectivity and complexity

involved in assessing creative CAD designs, ensuring a fair and equitable evaluation process for all students?

Theoretical Framework

The assessment of CAD projects in high schools is informed by a synthesis of key educational theories that together address the

complex challenge of evaluating both creativity and technical proficiency. Constructivist theory (Piaget, 1976) underscores the

idea that learners actively construct knowledge through their interactions with the environment, emphasizing the diverse cognitive

abilities and problem-solving approaches students bring to CAD tasks. This theory implies that assessment must be adaptable,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 99

capturing the individual learning processes students undergo while considering both their skill development and the final product

(Piaget, 1976). This perspective emphasizes the diverse cognitive abilities and problem-solving approaches that students bring to

CAD tasks. For instance, in a CAD project where students are tasked with designing a sustainable building, a constructivist

approach would allow for varied design solutions based on individual students' backgrounds and experiences. Assessment must

be adaptable, capturing the individual learning processes students undergo. For example, a teacher might assess a student's design

not solely based on the final product but also on their design process, including sketches, revisions, and the rationale behind their

choices.

Additionally, Creative Problem-Solving Theory (Guilford, 1967) highlights creativity as a dynamic, multifaceted process,

involving divergent thinking (the generation of multiple solutions) and convergent thinking (selecting the optimal solution). In

CAD, students engage in both ideation and technical execution, necessitating an evaluation that recognizes the originality of ideas

and the effectiveness of their technical implementation (Guilford, 1967). In a CAD context, this can manifest in students

brainstorming various design concepts for a product, such as a new piece of furniture. They would first generate multiple ideas

(divergent thinking) and then evaluate these ideas against specific criteria (convergent thinking) before creating detailed CAD

models. Assessment, therefore, should recognize both the originality of the ideas generated and the effectiveness of their technical

implementation. For example, a rubric could be developed that allocates points for creativity in design as well as for technical

accuracy in the CAD drawings.

Furthermore, Authentic Assessment Theory (Wiggins, 1990) advocates for real-world tasks in assessment, aligning with the

practical nature of CAD design by encouraging the evaluation of students’ problem-solving and technical abilities in a context

that mirrors professional settings. This approach champions assessments that are not only comprehensive but also reflect the real

challenges students will face in the industry (Wiggins, 1990). Together, these theories provide a robust framework for guiding

this study, emphasizing the need for flexible, creative, and real-world relevant assessment practices that fairly and

comprehensively evaluate students’ learning and skill development. This approach encourages the evaluation of students’

problem-solving and technical abilities in contexts that mirror professional settings. For instance, a project might require students

to collaborate in teams to design a product that meets a specific client’s needs, simulating a real-world CAD environment.

Assessments could include presentations to a panel of judges (such as local architects or engineers), where students must defend

their design choices and demonstrate their technical skills. This not only assesses their final product but also their ability to

communicate and justify their work, reflecting the challenges they will face in the industry.

Diversity in Student Abilities and Approaches to CAD Assessment

In the context of CAD education, students exhibit a diverse range of abilities, experiences, and learning approaches, creating a

dynamic environment where creativity and technical skill intersect (Jones, 2021). CAD offers students a platform to express

themselves, fostering unique problem-solving strategies and innovative solutions, which highlights the need for flexible

assessment frameworks (Lee & McManus, 2022). This diversity presents a significant challenge in assessment, as students often

arrive at different solutions based on their cognitive processes and creative visions. Traditional assessment frameworks, which

may prioritize uniformity, are not equipped to handle the variety of approaches students bring to CAD tasks. As a result,

standardized marking schemes become insufficient for fairly evaluating student work in exercises that do not require reproducing

diagrams, and alternative methods are needed to capture the complexity of students’ creative designs (Jones, 2021). For example,

when students are designing eco-friendly products, the range of innovative ideas always make it difficult to apply a one-size-fits-

all rubric. Some students may focus on aesthetics, while others prioritized functionality, leading to a rich variety of solutions that

traditional marking schemes could not adequately assess. To address this, assessment systems need to shift toward objectivity in

evaluating students' proficiency in using CAD software, rather than focusing solely on achieving identical outcomes (Smith et al.,

2023). This approach ensures that students are assessed on their ability to effectively utilize the tools and software to navigate

design challenges creatively. A flexible, process-oriented assessment system can better reflect the individual contributions of

students, fostering a more equitable environment in which creativity and technical proficiency are both recognized and valued

(Smith et al., 2023).

Balancing Technical Accuracy and Creative Innovation in CAD Designs

During the early stages of learning CAD, students often focus on reproducing diagrams, allowing them to become familiar with

the tools and functionalities of the software. This approach helps them understand the mechanics of CAD systems, often resulting

in similar outcomes across different learners (Johnson & McAllister, 2022). However, as students’ progress, there is an increasing

need to encourage creativity, allowing each learner to explore unique paths toward solutions, a case of individuality in their

designs (Henderson & Patel, 2021). These opportunities for students to apply their creativity, helps them to develop a distinctive

style that could eventually be valuable in real-world professional settings, where personal branding and creativity are increasingly

sought after (O’Connor & Walker, 2023). This shift towards creative expression, however, complicates the assessment process, as

standardized marking schemes may not fully capture the diverse, innovative approaches students employ (Johnson & McAllister,

2022). While technical accuracy remains a crucial component of CAD assessment, measuring creativity becomes more

challenging, as it is difficult to quantify innovation within a fixed framework (O’Connor & Walker, 2023). As such, educators

must develop strategies that assess creativity alongside technical proficiency, ensuring that students’ individuality is

acknowledged without compromising fairness (Henderson & Patel, 2021). A balance between standard technical accuracy and

creative exploration is essential to fairly evaluate students' work, acknowledging both their technical skills and their unique

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 100

design contributions (Johnson & McAllister, 2022). To address these challenges, for example teachers may incorporating peer

assessments and self-reflections, allowing students to articulate their design choices and the reasoning behind their creative

decisions.

The Subjectivity of Creativity in CAD Evaluation

Evaluating creativity in CAD projects is inherently subjective, especially when using standardized marking schemes. Since CAD

allows students to approach problems in diverse ways, existing marking systems often struggle to fairly capture the variety of

creative solutions, (Anderson & Miles, 2021). A more flexible assessment approach is needed, one that acknowledges the

individuality of each student's design process while maintaining fairness and consistency in evaluation (Jackson & Rivera, 2023).

This would ensure that creativity is assessed in a manner that reflects its multifaceted nature, rather than limiting it to predefined

criteria.

Practical Strategies for Fair and Effective CAD Assessment

Practical strategies for fair and effective CAD assessment must focus on addressing the complexities of evaluating both technical

skills and creativity while ensuring fairness, particularly for high school students. One effective approach is to incorporate

authentic assessment, which ensures that the evaluation process reflects real-world tasks and challenges, providing a more

dynamic and meaningful learning experience (Anderson & Miles, 2021). Assessments that mirror industry practices can help

educators assess students’ ability to apply their CAD skills in practical contexts thereby promoting real-world relevance (Barnes

& Taylor, 2022). A key element in maintaining fairness is the adaptation of rubrics that balance the need for technical proficiency

with the recognition of individual creative expression (Jackson & Rivera, 2023). Rubrics should offer clear, consistent guidelines

for evaluating technical accuracy while also allowing room for creative exploration. To further ensure a fair and inclusive

evaluation process, incorporating peer reviews and self-assessments provides students with opportunities to reflect on their work

and engage with the perspectives of their peers (Barnes & Taylor, 2022). This not only promotes fairness but also fosters a sense

of ownership and accountability in the learning process. These strategies can help educators to create an equitable CAD

assessment framework that values both technical skills and creativity, ensuring a balanced evaluation for all students (Jackson &

Rivera, 2023).

II. Literature Review

Assessing creativity in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) within high schools presents a complex challenge due to the diverse

cognitive abilities and learning approaches students bring to their projects. According to Anderson and Miles (2021), effective

CAD assessments must move beyond traditional, one-size-fits-all methods to embrace the diversity of solutions students generate.

This is crucial because CAD projects offer students a platform to express their creativity, which can manifest in various ways,

making standardized assessments insufficient. Similarly, Jackson and Rivera (2023) emphasize the need for rubrics that balance

creativity and technical accuracy in CAD assessments. Their research shows that traditional rubrics, which focus on specific

outcomes, often fail to recognize the innovative processes that students employ in their design work. This sentiment is echoed by

Robinson and Miller (2021), who argue that creativity and originality should be central to assessment criteria, while also stressing

the importance of technical precision to ensure a balanced evaluation.

The issue of creativity in CAD assessment is further complicated by the difficulty of quantifying creative outputs. A study by

Barnes and Taylor (2022) explores the limitations of standardized marking schemes in capturing the full spectrum of student

creativity. The authors argue that creativity cannot be adequately assessed through rigid scoring systems, as students often employ

unique and unpredictable methods to reach solutions. In response, they propose integrating formative assessment methods, such

as peer and self-assessment, to provide a more holistic view of a student's creative process. This perspective is reinforced by the

work of Smith and Green (2021), who found that incorporating self-assessment encourages students to reflect on their learning

journey and promotes a deeper understanding of the design process. Their research suggests that assessments should be dynamic,

offering room for students to showcase their approaches while still aligning with technical expectations. Furthermore, according

to Lee and Rodriguez (2022), evaluations that focus solely on final outcomes risk overlooking the value of iterative processes,

which are crucial in CAD projects where students' creative development is often a continuous and evolving process. This dynamic

approach aligns with the principles of authentic assessment, which prioritizes real-world tasks and challenges in evaluating

student performance (Anderson & Miles, 2021).

Considering these insights, practical strategies for CAD assessment must prioritize flexibility and inclusivity to ensure fairness.

Jackson and Rivera (2023) suggest the use of flexible rubrics that allow for creativity while providing clear technical criteria.

Such rubrics would allow for a more nuanced understanding of students’ skills, fostering an environment where technical and

creative abilities are equally valued. Recent work by White and Lister (2022) argues for the integration of digital portfolios,

which allow students to track their progress and demonstrate both technical mastery and creative development over time. This

strategy promotes a fairer evaluation by considering students' growth and the complexity of their learning processes. In addition, a

study by Foster and Wang (2023) emphasizes the importance of peer feedback in CAD assessments, noting that peer review can

offer a more comprehensive understanding of a student's abilities, particularly in terms of creativity and collaboration.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 101

III. Methodology

This study employed a qualitative research approach to explore the complexities of assessing CAD projects in high schools. The

research focused on ten CAD teachers, providing in-depth insights into their experiences and strategies. Data collection methods

included discussions, observations, and interviews, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the assessment challenges and

practices. Discussions facilitated open dialogues among teachers, revealing common themes and diverse perspectives.

Observations of classroom practices provided contextual insights into how assessments were conducted and how students

interacted with CAD tasks. Interviews offered detailed, personal accounts of teachers’ approaches to balancing technical

proficiency and creativity in their assessments.

IV. Findings

Challenges in Balancing Technical Proficiency and Creativity

Teachers face significant difficulties in assessing CAD projects due to the need to balance technical accuracy with creative

expression. Students often express confusion about how marks are awarded in open-ended design tasks, questioning why their

unique solutions might score differently from others.

Teacher X1 observed, "Open-ended questions are essential for encouraging creativity, but the challenge is in marking them

fairly. Each design is so different, and deciding which is the best can be quite subjective." Teacher X5 supported this, stating, "We

want students to think creatively, but when it comes to marking, it’s tough because each design has its strengths. Comparing them

isn’t straightforward, and that makes consistent marking difficult." Both teachers highlight the inherent tension in fostering

creativity while maintaining a clear and fair assessment process, emphasizing the subjective nature of evaluating diverse design

solutions.

Effectiveness of Current Assessment Methods

Teachers expressed mixed views on the effectiveness of current assessment practices in capturing the diverse abilities and

creativity of students in CAD projects. When it comes to reproducing diagrams, they noted that it is relatively straightforward,

even if students use different methods. Teacher X1 stated, "Reproducing diagrams is simpler to mark because you can allocate

marks stage by stage. Even if students don't complete the whole design, they can still earn marks for the parts they've finished."

Teacher X2 agreed, adding, "Quizzes are easy to assess since they are straightforward, with clear right or wrong answers."

Teacher X6 also supported this view, saying, "Breaking down the reproduction of diagrams into stages makes it manageable, as

students who may not finish can still be credited for their progress." Teacher X7 echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that stage-

by-stage marking ensures fairness in technical tasks. However, when it comes to open-ended questions, the teachers

acknowledged the difficulty of assessing creativity. Teacher X2 pointed out, "Open questions require a design guide, but they

also need to leave room for creativity. This makes it challenging to measure the different dimensions of creativity accurately."

The consensus among the teachers was that while structured tasks like quizzes and diagram reproduction are easier to assess,

open-ended design questions pose significant challenges due to the subjective nature of evaluating creativity.

Strategies for Ensuring Fairness and Consistency

Teachers shared different strategies to ensure fairness in CAD assessments. Teacher X4 explained, "I clearly outline all my

expectations in open questions, which helps set a transparent standard for students”. Similarly, Teacher X6 mentioned, "When

students question their marks, I compare their designs with the most competent ones, using exemplary work as a reference to

address student concerns and maintain consistency in grading”. These insights highlight the efforts teachers make to balance

fairness and clarity in the assessment process.

Adapting Assessment Practices for Creative Solutions

Teachers emphasized the importance of flexible assessment practices to accommodate the diverse and creative solutions students

produce in CAD projects. Teacher X2 noted, "CAD software provides students with opportunities to shine, often leading to

sophisticated designs." Teacher X7 added, "Several times, we had to adjust the marking scheme after seeing students' work on

open questions," highlighting the need for adaptive grading strategies. Teacher X3 further explained, "It’s easier to create the

marking guide after reviewing the work, as CAD allows all students, even those who struggle with traditional drawing, to express

their creativity." These insights underscore the necessity of flexible assessment methods to fairly evaluate the wide range of

student outputs in CAD.

Role of Peer and Self-Assessment in Enhancing Fairness

Peer and self-assessment play a crucial role in enhancing fairness in Computer-Aided Design (CAD), as highlighted by teachers

who recognize its positive impact on student engagement and learning outcomes. Teacher X1 emphasized, "In CAD, there is no

copying; it's all about how you cope with the software and the flexibility in your approach." Teacher X5 noted, "Even when

students work together on open questions, each computer shows a different result. They often agree on who has the best design,

making the marking process easier." Teacher X4 added, "When students collaborate, they can openly discuss their designs and

even rate each other's work, which helps streamline the assessment process." Additionally, Teacher X2 stated, "This method

fosters transparency, allowing students to understand the evaluation criteria better." Teacher X7 remarked, "It encourages

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 102

students to reflect critically on their work and each other's designs, resulting in deeper learning." Teacher X9 expressed, "Peer

feedback is invaluable; students often provide insights that I might overlook." Finally, Teacher X10 highlighted, "The

collaborative environment nurtures skills that are essential for their future careers." Collectively, these sentiments illustrate that

peer and self-assessment not only promote fairness but also encourage reflective practices and enhance overall student outcomes.

V. Discussion of findings

The findings reveal a complex landscape in which teachers navigate the tension between fostering creativity and maintaining

technical standards in CAD assessments. The subjective nature of evaluating open-ended design tasks presents a significant

challenge, as each student’s solution is unique, making it difficult to establish a consistent and fair grading system. While

structured tasks such as diagram reproduction are easier to assess through stage-by-stage marking, the open-ended nature of

design questions complicates the process, particularly when it comes to evaluating the creative elements of students' work.

Teachers highlight the need for flexible and adaptive assessment practices that can account for the diverse range of student

solutions, acknowledging that CAD software provides students with opportunities to showcase their creativity, regardless of their

proficiency in traditional drawing skills. The use of peer and self-assessment also emerged as an important strategy for promoting

fairness, as students can compare their work with others and engage in reflective practices, making the assessment process more

inclusive. This approach allows for a more holistic evaluation, where creativity and technical proficiency are given equal weight.

Despite the challenges, teachers are committed to refining their assessment practices, aiming to create a fairer and more consistent

system that accommodates the individuality of each student's design while maintaining technical rigor. The findings underscore

the importance of striking a balance between flexibility and structure in assessment methods, as well as the value of using

student-driven approaches, such as peer assessments, to ensure that the diversity of creative solutions is appropriately recognized.

VI. Conclusion

This study underscores the intricate challenges and opportunities educators face in assessing Computer-Aided Design (CAD) in

high schools, particularly in balancing technical accuracy with creative expression. Through the perspectives of CAD teachers, it

is evident that while current assessment practices such as staged diagram reproduction offer clarity and fairness, they fall short

when capturing the multidimensional nature of creativity inherent in open-ended design tasks. The research highlights the

necessity for adaptable, flexible assessment frameworks that allow for individualized evaluation of student solutions while

ensuring consistency and fairness. Furthermore, the incorporation of peer and self-assessment proves instrumental in fostering a

more inclusive, reflective, and equitable evaluation process. Ultimately, this study calls for a rethinking of CAD assessment

practices, advocating for a system that not only measures technical proficiency but also nurtures and acknowledges the diverse

creative potential of students.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made to enhance the assessment practices for Computer-

Aided Design (CAD) in high schools:

1. Adopt Flexible Assessment Frameworks: Schools should implement adaptive assessment practices that allow for

individualized evaluations. Flexible frameworks can accommodate various creative solutions, ensuring that assessments

reflect the uniqueness of each student's work.

2. Incorporate Open-Ended Design Tasks: Educators should emphasize open-ended design questions in CAD

assignments. Integrating these tasks, educators can foster an environment that values individual design processes while

still addressing technical criteria.

3. Integrate Peer and Self-Assessment: Actively incorporating peer and self-assessment methods into the CAD

curriculum can enhance fairness and inclusivity.

4. Provide Stage-by-Stage Assessment for Technical Tasks: Implementing a stage-by-stage marking system for

technical tasks like diagram reproduction can ensure clarity and fairness. This method allows students to earn credit for

progress, even if they do not complete the entire assignment.

5. Ensure Transparency in Expectations: Teachers should clearly communicate their expectations for open-ended design

tasks, providing explicit guidelines on success criteria for both technical execution and creative innovation. This

transparency can reduce confusion and foster trust in the evaluation process.

6. Invest in Professional Development for Educators: Continuous professional development is essential for CAD

teachers to stay updated with the latest advancements in CAD software and assessment techniques. The study

emphasizes the need for teachers to adapt their marking schemes based on student outputs, indicating a necessity for

ongoing training in innovative assessment strategies. Workshops and training sessions can enhance educators' skills in

both technical and creative assessment.

References

1. Anderson, H., & Miles, L. (2021). Authentic assessment in CAD: Linking classroom projects to real-world applications.

Journal of Engineering Education, 32(4), 126-139.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue I, January 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 103

2. Barnes, D., & Taylor, J. (2022). Promoting fairness in CAD assessments through peer and self-assessment. Journal of

Design Education, 24(2), 90-102.

3. Foster, S., & Wang, R. (2023). The role of peer feedback in CAD assessments: Enhancing creativity and collaboration.

International Journal of Design & Technology Education, 38(2), 221-235.

4. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill.

5. Henderson, K., & Patel, S. (2021). Encouraging creativity in technical design: Challenges and strategies in CAD

education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 1420-1428.

6. Jackson, R., & Rivera, S. (2023). Designing balanced rubrics for evaluating creativity and technical skills in CAD

education. International Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 55-66.

7. Johnson, R., & McAllister, M. (2022). The role of standardized assessments in CAD education: Navigating technical

accuracy and creativity. Journal of Design Technology, 25(3), 65-74.

8. Jones, R. (2021). Assessing creative and technical skills in CAD education. Journal of Design Education, 15(2), 34-45.

9. Lee, A., & Rodriguez, M. (2022). Capturing the iterative process in CAD education: Beyond the final product. Journal of

Engineering Education Research, 28(3), 148-160.

10. Lee, K., & McManus, M. (2022). Rethinking assessment practices for CAD in high schools: A modern approach.

Technology in Education, 18(1), 52-61.

11. O'Connor, T., & Walker, D. (2023). Balancing technical proficiency with creative freedom in CAD assessment. Journal

of Digital Design Education, 18(1), 12-22.

12. Piaget, J. (1976). The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Child. Harvard University Press.

13. Popham, W. J. (1997). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Allyn & Bacon.

14. Robinson, M., & Miller, L. (2021). Reconceptualizing creativity in CAD assessments: A shift toward holistic evaluation.

International Journal of Design Research, 19(4), 400-411.

15. Smith, J., & Green, R. (2021). Reflective self-assessment as a tool for fostering creativity in CAD education. Journal of

Educational Innovation, 19(3), 200-215.

16. Smith, T., Johnson, A., & Green, L. (2023). Evaluating diversity in CAD assessments: The challenge of creativity and

technicality. Journal of Educational Technology, 22(3), 78-89

17. Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Personnel Press.

18. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

19. White, P., & Lister, C. (2022). Digital portfolios for CAD: A strategy for capturing creativity and technical skill

development. Educational Technology & Society, 25(4), 134-145.

20. Wiggins, G. (1990). The Case for Authentic Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 2(2), 1-6.