## 2 Materials and Methods
### Evaluating Potential Creativity Improvement When Using AutoCAD Mechanical  
This study aimed to evaluate the potential enhancement of creativity when using AutoCAD Mechanical compared to standard AutoCAD by analyzing the design variations produced by beginner CAD users. A structured methodology was implemented to assess how the use of automated mechanical design tools influences creative problem-solving in technical drawing. The research involved the same fifty beginner CAD users from previous studies, each assigned the task of designing a mechanical assembly using AutoCAD or AutoCAD Mechanical, depending on which group they belong to. To ensure consistency, all participants worked from the same reference design (Figure 7)--a standard mechanical assembly represented as a fully dimensioned and annotated engineering drawing. This drawing incorporated detailed sectional views, geometric dimensioning and tolerancing, machining specifications, and a BOM, providing all necessary manufacturing and assembly information for precise fabrication. Participants were instructed to create a variation of the given design based on specific improvement strategies. These strategies included geometrical optimization, which focused on improving material efficiency while maintaining structural integrity; feature enhancement, which introduced additional mechanical features to enhance functionality; simplification for production, which aimed to reduce complexity for more efficient manufacturing; modular assembly, which redesigned components for easier assembly and disassembly; and advanced mechanical integration, which incorporated industry-standard mechanical features into the design. The objective was to explore how different CAD tools influence creativity in technical design. Participants belonging to group 1 completed their designs using AutoCAD, relying on traditional drafting tools, such as basic 2D drawing commands, manual dimensioning, and standard constraints. Group 2 performed the same design tasks using AutoCAD Mechanical, which provided parametric constraints, standard part libraries, automated dimensioning, and mechanical-specific tools. This comparison  
Figure 7: Reference design given to the participants to evaluate creativity. highlighted the differences between manual drafting methods and automated mechanical design tools in fostering creative technical solutions. To evaluate the creative outcomes, a rubric-based assessment was applied based on four key criteria: (i) originality measured the degree of innovation in the design approach; (ii) functionality assessed the feasibility and appropriateness of the solution for manufacturing; (iii) efficient use of CAD tools evaluated proficiency in applying the relevant commands in AutoCAD or AutoCAD Mechanical; and (iv) graphical quality examined the clarity, precision, and completeness of the technical drawings. These criteria provided a structured framework for assessing the impact of different CAD tools on creativity in mechanical design. Each design was independently evaluated by experienced CAD instructors, who assigned scores on a scale from one to five for each criterion, resulting in a maximum possible score of twenty points per design. The average creativity score was then calculated for each design variation to assess the impact of AutoCAD versus AutoCAD Mechanical on creative output. To ensure consistency and objectivity, a structured evaluation rubric was developed, as shown in Table 1, which provides a systematic framework for assessing the quality of CAD-generated designs based on the previously defined key criteria. To ensure objectivity during the evaluation of design creativity, all student submissions were anonymized and presented in randomized order, preventing evaluators from identifying whether a design was created using AutoCAD or AutoCAD Mechanical. The assessment was carried out by experienced CAD instructors who were trained in advance to apply the rubric consistently.