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

Abstract

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.