Предыстория и предпосылки трансформации начертательной геометрии в инженерную

Abstract

In the past decade is widely discussed the problem of
 geometric and graphic training of students of technical universities
 in Russia. In 1980-2005 arose contradictions between traditional
 and innovative methods of teaching for descriptive geometry and
 engineering graphics. This marked the article Professor P.A. Tunakov,
 in which descriptive geometry was carried to a dying science. This
 radical statement in subsequent years was supported by V.A. Rukavishnikov
 [15; 16] and A.L. Kheifets. An additional impetus to
 discussions was given by the developers of the Federal state educational
 standards of higher education (FSES), which declared the
 competence approach to the process of learning and evaluation of
 knowledge of graduates. Introduction in educational process of
 computer graphics
 and the appearance of technologies of 3D modeling
 prompted some representatives of the departments of engineering
 graphics towards the radical statements:
 • descriptive geometry as a graphic discipline became "moribund",
 "morally obsolete";
 • it is necessary to refuse from the method of projection, as
 "fundamentally important is a matter of conformity to the dimension
 of the three-dimensional computer model and the
 modeled object".
 The article proves the incorrectness of these statements. History
 and background of transformation of the descriptive geometry in
 the engineering geometry are shown:
 1) references to the dynamics of change subjects of presentations
 at the Moscow seminars on descriptive geometry and on engineering
 graphics during 1944–1965; the themes of dissertations
 on the specialty 05.01.01 engineering geometry and computer
 graphics (up to 1977 – applied geometry and engineering graphics);
 2) the requirements of competence-based learning model to establish:
 • intrasubject links (combination of synthetics and analytical
 methods of problem solving);
 • interdisciplinary connections by expanding the subject of
 the discipline of the multidimensional shapes;
 3) the incorrectness of opposing the "by the radicals" of 2D and
 3D models, for they are complementary the types of modeling
 single method of two images.