3D Printing in Instructional Settings: Identifying a Curricular Hierarchy of Activities By Abbie Brown, East Carolina University ©Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015
Abstract A report of a year-long study in which the author engaged in 3D printing activity in order to determine how to facilitate and support skill building, concept attainment, and increased confidence with its use among teachers. Use of 3D printing tools and their applications in instructional settings are discussed. A hierarchy of 3D printing activities of increasing complexity, consisting of print trials, design experiments, and engineering tests, is identified and described. An iterative model that includes the development and refinement of 3D printing tools, geared specifically toward engineering settings is also described. Keywords: 3D printing, educational technology, technology education, engineering curriculum, STEM, makerspace, maker
T
he 2014 higher education edition and the 2013 K-12 education edition of the Horizon Report both showcase 3D printing as an important development in educational technology (New Media Consortium, 2013; 2014), and reports of early adopters’ experiments with 3D printing as a classroom activity have been appearing regularly in the popular press and teaching practitioner literature (e.g. Aboufadel, 2014; John, 2014; Kharbach, 2013; Schaffhauser, 2013). 16
Bell, Chiu, Berry, Lipson, and Xie (2014) articulated the possibilities for STEM-related education more completely in the most recent edition of the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, observing among other things that engineering as a practically applied activity offers students opportunities to gain understanding of scientific and mathematical concepts in context. Furthermore, working with 3D design and production tools may help students develop their spatial ability. The Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth defines spatial ability as the capacity to recognize and remember the three-dimensional relations among objects. Spatial ability may be viewed as a unique form of intelligence distinguishable from other forms such as verbal ability and reasoning ability (Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth, n.d.). A recent study indicates that focusing on the development of spatial ability in middle school may increase an individual’s later opportunities for success in creative and scholarly achievements (Kell, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2013). When I was the editor-in-chief of the journal, TechTrends, I participated in the National Technology Leadership Coalition (NTLC) organized by Glen Bull. Dr. Bull provides visionary leadership in the use of digital fabrication, or 3D printing, in K-12
TechTrends • September/October 2015
Volume 59, Number 5
classrooms. I helped author an editorial that ran in multiple, educational technology journals including TechTrends (Bell, Brown, Bull, Conly, Johnson, McAnear, Maddux, Marks, Thompson, Schmidt, Smaldino, Spector, & Sprague, 2010) that described the promise of digital fabrication as an instructional activity in K-12 settings. I was inspired by what I read and what I saw at the NTLC summits and at conferences such as the annual meeting of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). It was at an ISTE conference that I first saw 3D printers in action. I watched in fascination as printers the size of a coffee maker that would easily fit on a desk or table printed out plastic chess pieces. I could see these devices in a school setting, motivating students to experiment with fabrication designs of their own, and fostering a number of STEM-related learning activities. The attention 3D printing currently draws, combined with the possibility of it serving to facilitate STEM activities and potentially provide young people opportunities to develop beneficial spatial ability, is reason enough to explore the technology’s potential as a learning tool. Before the technology can be broadly disseminated, applied to other subjects, or researched in greater depth, though, practitioners must develop a greater understanding of 3D printing generally and discover how best to support skill acquisition in the processes related to desktop fabrication. Conceptually, 3D printing technology is relatively easy to understand. However, to make truly useful recommendations on how to apply this technology in the classroom, one requires direct experience with the hardware and software. This article reports on a yearlong study in which the author engaged in 3D printing activity in order to determine how to facilitate and support skill building, concept attainment, and increased confidence with its use among teachers. The author, an educational technology specialist, sought to become a member of the 3D printing community in order to serve as a bridge between it and the education community.
by personal involvement to achieve a level of understanding that will be shared with others” (2005, p. 58). This method of inquiry also is known as “participant observation” (Kawulich, 2005). Personal involvement, that is, immersion in the culture and practice of desktop fabrication using software and 3D printing devices, seemed the most immediate, effective and thorough method of developing the type of understanding necessary to articulate the processes involved in 3D printing as well as the advantages, challenges, and limitations of 3D printing as an educational activity. A participant observation or fieldwork approach provides the researcher opportunities to gain greater understanding of how things are organized and ranked within a specific community; allows the researcher to gather and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data through direct observation, surveys and interviews; and provides opportunities to develop new research questions and hypotheses for further study (Kawulich, 2005). In the study of an innovative technology, the “ongoing social activities of some individual or group” (Wolcott, 2005, p. 4) are those activities in which users of the new technology currently engage. This includes making use of the tools: hardware and software, necessary to achieve specific results. It also includes interacting with others who are experimenting with and/ or making use of the technology. In the case of an innovative technology phenomenon, participant observation or fieldwork provides the opportunity to explore the situation initially and sufficiently in order to develop questions and hypotheses suitable for further research. Like any research method, participant observation and fieldwork have disadvantages and limitations. For this study, the most immediately noticeable potential problem is that the data collected is based on an individual researcher’s interests and may not accurately reflect the phenomenon in general (Kawulich, 2005).
Study Design: Fieldwork
Desktop fabrication fieldwork requires access to Computer Aided Design (CAD) software, 3D printing devices or opportunities to obtain a 3D print by a third party, and opportunities to interact with individuals and groups actively engaged in desktop fabrication. The desired result is the design and production of three-dimensional objects that are created using CAD software and rendered using a 3D printer. This design and production activity provides direct experience with the tools
To gain a greater understanding of how 3D printing works and how it might be practically applied within instructional settings, I employed the fieldwork method of research. As defined by Wolcott (2005), fieldwork is, “a form of inquiry in which one immerses oneself personally in the ongoing social activities of some individual or group for the purposes of research” (p. 4). Wolcott states, “fieldwork is characterized Volume 59, Number 5
Study Parameters
TechTrends • September/October 2015
17
and procedures associated with successful practice, a point of entry into the community of 3D printing enthusiasts through shared experience in terms of appreciation for both project successes and challenges encountered within the design/production processes, as well as the opportunity to gain an understanding of the community’s common language in terms of jargon, and slang. To conduct this study, I obtained a commercially available 3D printer and a variety of CAD-related software programs that facilitate digital, 3D modeling. I interacted with the community of 3D printing enthusiasts through visits and conversations with individuals engaged in 3D printing in their own professional settings. I also invited colleagues and co-workers at my university to experiment with 3D printing; these individuals tended to be technologically sophisticated and eager to engage in the 3D printing process in order to add it to their own store of experiences. Serving as a combination of data organization, archiving experiments and a form of member-check (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), I maintain the blog, 3D Printing Project (http://blog.ecu.edu/sites/3dprinting/). The blog, established in June of 2013, contains text and images documenting my experiences with 3D printing, including both my personal printing experiments and experiments conducted with subjects (colleagues and coworkers), as well as links to publications and media (e.g. Web-based video) on the subject of 3D printing. The blog entries that include text descriptions and photographs of experiments conducted with colleagues and co-workers serve both as an archive of the event and an opportunity for member-check; all subjects were asked to review the entries in which they are featured to ensure the experience was documented as accurately as possible. Wolcott (2005) maintains that fieldwork is not complete without reporting its results. Wolcott asserts, “fieldwork is validated only through the requisite reporting that results from it” (p. 58). This article and the report it contains is, therefore, part of the fieldwork process itself. Bull et al. (2014) observed, “since the opportunity to incorporate desktop manufacturing systems in education has occurred only recently, there is very little prior research on how these systems might be employed to best advantage in instructional setting,” (p. 676). It is my hope that sharing the results of a fieldwork study may provide direction for continued research on 3D printing for instructional purposes. 18
3D Printing Technology, Terminology and Community Lipson and Kurman (2013) pointed out that 3D printing is more than just one technology. 3D printing encompasses a broad range of technologies that are directed toward producing three-dimensional objects from computer-based designs. 3D printing, therefore, should not be thought of as any one, proprietary technological tool like an iPad, but should be viewed as a technology category to which many tools and processes belong. To extend the analogy, 3D printing is not like an iPad, it is more like the broader range of technologies that generally encompass tablet computing. Doctorow, in his fictional tale, Makers (2010), a novel that has influenced the 3D printing community in a manner similar to how Stephenson’s novel, Snow Crash (1992), influenced the online virtual reality community, uses the term “volumetric printers” which is an apt description of the technology. Unlike common, paper printers that print in two dimensions (length and width), 3D printers print objects that have volume (length, width, and height). 3D designs and 3D printed objects can be measured along x, y, and z axes. Plewa (2013) used the term “volumetric imaging” to describe methods of describing and defining digital objects that have height, depth and length. The terms volumetric imaging and volumetric printing work well to describe in the broadest sense the sequential processes of rendering a three-dimensional design using software and subsequently realizing that design in a three-dimensional, solid form. The process of localized design and production of solid objects also is known as “desktop manufacturing” or “personal fabrication systems,” (Bull et al., 2014; Gershenfeld, 2005). A key difference between desktop manufacturing or personal fabrication and traditional craft or “shop” activity is that desktop manufactured designs can be replicated perfectly, and the digital designs, like any other digital data, can be infinitely duplicated and distributed widely and almost instantaneously via networked computing environments such as the Internet and local intranets.
Additive Manufacturing The relatively small 3D printers available to consumers use an additive manufacturing process. That is, the “print” is the result of a medium, which is most often a spool of ABS
TechTrends • September/October 2015
Volume 59, Number 5
or PLA plastic the shape of spaghetti, heated to a liquid state and deposited in very thin layers in order to form the finished product. Unlike manufacturing processes that cut away parts of the medium to obtain the desired form (similar to sculpting in stone), there is no waste of the print medium involved in the additive process. In order to accurately lay down precise layers, the 3D printer’s nozzle or print head must be able to move left and right, forward and back, and up and down. Alternatively the print head may move left and right and forward and back, while the platform upon which the product is formed moves up and down. 3D printers marketed toward the general public can print models that range from approximately 4-inches to 10-inces on any one side, depending on the size of the printer itself. The pattern employed by the printer to produce a form is a series of layers of the form. Before printing begins, a software program examines an existing three-dimensional model and “slices” the form into thin layers. This forms the instruction set for the printer, which deposits the print medium one layer at a time until a complete model is produced.
Computer Aided Design (CAD) The three-dimensional model is initially generated through a computer-aided-design or CAD process that determines and describes the x, y and z coordinates that define the volume and dimensions of the model. The standard file format for 3D print model is the stereolithographic or Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) format, which describes the model’s surface geography. The volumetric image is articulated as a “mesh” of contiguous triangles. Once the surface geography is established, the .stl file must be processed to create the series of layers or “slices” the printer will actually print. A wide variety of CAD software programs are available, ranging from complex and difficult to master programs such as, Blender, to programs designed specifically for their ease-ofuse such as Google’s, SketchUp, and Autocad’s, 123D Design. Recently, Adobe added 3D print modeling capabilities to its popular graphics manipulation software, Photoshop. No matter which software program or printer one uses to create the form, the production process is essentially the same: a .stl file is imported into a software program that “slices” the model into layers; the 3D printer uses the file containing the layer information to extrude and precisely place the print medium. Volume 59, Number 5
3D Printing Community: Makers The community of 3D printing enthusiasts is large and varied. One popular section of this community is known as the “Maker” movement. Members of the Maker movement or “makers” are technologically sophisticated do-it-yourself (DIY) enthusiasts interested in activities related to engineering, electronics, robotics, and desktop fabrication. Anderson (2012) wrote, “…the digital revolution has now reached the workshop, the lair of Real Stuff, and there it may have the greatest impact yet” (p. 19), and goes on to state, “The past ten years have been about discovering new ways to create, invent, and work together on the Web. The next ten years will be about applying those lessons to the real world” (Anderson, 2012, p. 24). Makers actively encourage electronic DIY activity for students of all ages. One of the ways this activity is supported is through the creation and maintenance of “makerspaces,” that are essentially well-stocked shop spaces that provide a safe environment for the production of locally designed items. The United States’ presidential administration provides support for this activity, having launched a program in 2012 to establish makerspaces in one thousand American schools over a four-year period (Anderson, 2012). The website makerspace. com provides resources for establishing makerspaces, including, The Makerspace Playbook, (Hlubinka, Dougherty, Thomas, Chang, Hoefer, Alexander & McGuire, 2013) a free publication that provides guidance on creating and safely maintaining such spaces. The maker movement and 3D printing are closely associated. One of the more popular 3D printer devices is actually named “Makerbot” (see http://www.makerbot.com), and Bre Pettis, CEO of Makerbot (see http://www. brepettis.com) is a popular and influential member of the maker movement. The maker movement has attracted the attention of the K-12 education community, as evidenced by such articles as, The Maker Movement: A Learning Revolution, (Lubow Martinez & Stager, 2014) in, Learning and Leading with Technology, particularly because it supports a constructionist approach to education through problem-based learning and handson, physical activity directly associated with concepts and processes directly associated with traditional K-12 curriculum (Bull et al., 2014; Gershenfeld, 2005; Lubow Martinez & Stager, 2014). The 3D printing community is open and welcoming. It is not particularly well
TechTrends • September/October 2015
19
defined and my experience suggests anyone with an interest in the subject may consider themselves a maker. However, it does help to have access to the software and hardware necessary to actually participate in production since this provides greater opportunity to interact with the community through both a visceral understanding of the processes involved (shared experience) as well as a repository of slightly divergent experiences of interest to other community members. These similar experiences help expand community expertise in terms of trouble-shooting and success strategies, offering other community members something of value in return for the opportunity to communicate with and learn from other community members.
Obtaining 3D Printing Tools As described at the beginning of this article, I became interested in 3D printing through exposure to the process at professional meetings such as the National Technology Leadership Summit and the ISTE conference. It was something I discussed at length at university, college and department meetings with anyone who would listen. Apparently, I could not go more than ten minutes in any meeting on campus without mentioning digital printing and how great it would be for us to have access to a digital printer on campus. In late April of 2013, at a departmental faculty meeting my chair pulled me aside and said with a smile, “I think I got you a 3D printer.” She mentioned my interest at a meeting with our college’s Dean, who was discussing funds available in one of the college’s accounts for equipment of this type. I was directed to submit a detailed list the hardware and software I would need so that the college could arrange the purchases. In reviewing the various commercially available printers at the time, I observed the Cubify (cubify.com) Cube from 3D Systems, Inc. received top reviews for ease-of-use and reasonable price (something a school district could afford). The college ordered the Cube 2 model along with a large number of the print medium cartridges (spools of PLA and ABS plastic strands) in a variety of colors. Software purchases were not necessary: a variety of free CAD programs were available at the time, which seemed both suitable to the task and most likely to be adopted in school settings. The two programs used at the outset of the study were Blender (Blender Foundation, 2013), and 3DTin (Lagoa, 2010). 20
Engaging in 3D Printing: Print Trials, Design Experiments, and Engineering Tests Once the printer was unpacked and set up in a corner of my office, I began the formal study. During data collection, each attempt to produce a 3D object was labeled a “print test.” The author, as participant observer, always recorded the experience. Three of the completed test-print activities involved a study subject; his/ her experiences and personal reflections were recorded as well and the resulting document was submitted to the subject for review. Four other subjects began the process of a 3D printing activity, but did not proceed past a demonstration of the 3D printing device and conversation about what the subject might print. At the end of the year and more than 25 print-test activities, a review of the journal entries, blog posts, and private communication with subjects revealed a pattern of activity. A comparison of each printtest experience indicated a basic hierarchy of printing activity that consists of “print trials, design experiments, and engineering tests.”
Print Trials Every time an object is fabricated using a 3D printer it may be considered a “print trial.” The act of producing an object using a 3D printer is at present a complicated task with a number of potential pitfalls that may cause a failure in the process. The CAD file must be prepared for printing correctly, and the printer must be properly calibrated and prepared. In the case of the Cube 2 printer, this includes preparing the print plate properly to receive the print medium by applying a thin film of glue to its surface and ensuring the print medium is properly installed. The purpose of a print trial is to demonstrate proficiency with the technology itself: preparing the digital file and operating the printer. Any .stl file may be used for a print trial. I began print trials by printing files that had been made publicly available on the Web. My first print trial was a Chinese dragon (see Figure 1), obtained from the Stanford 3D Scanning Repository (Stanford University Computer Graphics Laboratory, 2013). According the website, “The purpose of this repository is to make some range data and detailed reconstructions available to the public” (2013). The dragon model is highly detailed, visually pleasing, and iconic in that most people recognize it as a popular artistic motif, all of which was taken into consideration when selecting it for the first print trial. The dragon model was printed numerous times
TechTrends • September/October 2015
Volume 59, Number 5
during the year; I experimented with printing different sizes of the dragon, ranging from one inch to three inches in height, in order to see how changing size affected print fidelity and structural integrity; it was the object printed at two public demonstrations of 3D printing at the university; and copies of the dragon were presented to my department chair and college dean as 3D print examples they keep on display in their offices. Print trials are an important first step in developing 3D printing proficiency. They provide opportunities to gain skill and confidence with the process of 3D printing. Once a reasonable amount of skill and confidence is achieved, however, print trials themselves become relatively simple exercises in putting the hardware through its paces. Creative activity begins with design experiments.
Design Experiments A design experiment is a print trial of a uniquely developed CAD file. As opposed to a print trial that begins with a CAD file created by another person or group, the design experiment begins with the development of a unique object rendered using CAD software. The purpose of a design experiment is to demonstrate proficiency with CAD software and three dimensional patterning as well as operating the 3D printer. During the study I encountered two possible methods of designing a unique object: create the object “from scratch” (starting with nothing), or modify existing objects to create a unique object. An example of a design experiment modifying existing objects is the ring tool on the cubify. com website (http://www.cubify.com/en/Store/ App/GQ63O723UR). The ring tool is a Web application that allows one to create a wearable ring using a variety of ready-made parts including basic ring shapes and decorative objects (symbols and letters) that can be added to a ring shape. One can change the sizes of the ring shape and each of the decorative objects. I used the ring tool to create a signet ring with my university’s initials and a symbol that references our athletic team mascot on the surface (Figure 2). Using Web applications that modify existing designs, allowing one to create a unique object by manipulating 3D modeled pieces has its own challenges, but overall it is fun and easy enough for most beginners to complete while feeling empowered by the process. However, engaging in a design experiment in which one creates the entire object on one’s own, using no pre-existing objects is very different; it was for me both satisfying and humbling. It was deeply satisfying to develop and print a unique object, but it Volume 59, Number 5
was humbling to realize how much effort and skill is involved in creating something sophisticated and aesthetically pleasing. The best I was able to do was create a treasure chest (see Figure 3). It took hours of trial-and-error, learning both how the CAD software worked and how to translate my model design from a Figure 1. Print trial of Stanford dragon. rough pencil sketch to the complete 3D model. These hours were spent engaged in solving problems that included: • Indicating on the model where the top and bottom halves of the chest met: I discovered I could “etch” a line around the model to suggest the division between the top and bottom; • “Carving” the top so that it had the traditional, rounded shape of a treasure chest: I discovered I could “draw” and arc on a rectangular model and “slice away” the portion of the rectangle outside the defined arc’s curve; • Adding parts to the model such as handles on the sides: I experimented with combining resized Figure 2. Ring created with a Web application. torus and sphere shapes and embedding them halfway into the model. Design experiments provide opportunities for both creativity and technological skill development. Creating unique structures using CAD software and printing them requires considerable mental effort and time. Draft and revision is an important part of the design experiment process. Once one has sufficient experience with design experiments one can apply one’s ability to create unique objects to engineering challenges.
Engineering Tests An engineering test is a design experiment Figure 3. Treasure chest design by the author. applied to a manufacturing or production challenge. It encompasses the print trial and design experiment activity in that a unique design is fabricated using a 3D printer, and it serves as the solution to an actual problem. During the year, two
TechTrends • September/October 2015
21
university colleagues who served as study subjects completed engineering tests. The first engineering test involved designing and printing a pair of earrings. A colleague whose hobby is jewelry making approached me with an idea for producing a pair of 3D-printed earrings to compliment at necklace she had created. The necklace had an imprint of a dog’s head prominently displayed in the design, and my colleague wanted to create a pair of earrings that looked like fire hydrants. With a significant amount of trial and error with CAD software, my friend was able to generate an elegant and unique fire hydrant design. However, in our first print test, we scaled the object inaccurately and wound up with more of a Christmas ornament than an earring. This engineering test occurred early in the study, within the first month of my experiments with 3D printing, which may account for our inability to solve the problem at hand. Though my colleague has not pursued the engineering test in order to modify the scale to a more acceptable size, she reported she was satisfied with the experience and enjoyed the opportunity to create something and see it realized as a three dimensional object. The second engineering test was completed toward the end of the year-long study. Another colleague decided to design and produce a cover for his Raspberry Pi (an inexpensive, small computer, designed to facilitate the exploration of computing and programming; see http:// www.raspberrypi.org). He used Google’s SketchUp software to render his design (and in the process showed me how to export .stl files from SketchUp). The case is two individually printed pieces and print trials for each piece were successful overall in the first attempts (see Figure 4). The Raspberry Pi fits well inside the case. However, the two pieces used a post and hole design to fit together and the posts and holes could not be printed as precisely as required (most if not all desktop 3D printers currently print with limited precision); the holes had to be clipped from the print allowing the top piece to rest on the bottom piece while holding the two pieces together requires something like a rubber band wrapped around both. The initial print trial works well enough to house the Raspberry Pi as it sits on a desk, but given extra time my colleague expressed interest in trying to modify Figure 4. Case designed to house a the design so that the two Raspberry Pi unit. pieces held to each other. 22
Engineering tests take design experiments to different level by applying the design and print processes to an actual problem that requires taking scale into consideration and predicting how the printed object will interact with other objects. Each print activity may be considered a problem-based learning event. The complexity of the problem increases from print trial in which the problem is to make the hardware and software replicate an existing design; to design experiment in which the problem is to make the hardware and software produce a unique design; to the engineering test in which the problem is to get the hardware and software produce a unique design that addresses a real need (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Hierarchy of 3D Printing Activity.
Discussion Although the activities are organized hierarchically in Figure 5, each is an important learning experience. The print trials provide instruction on the fabrication process specifically, maintaining focus on the mechanical aspects of volumetric printing. The design experiments provide instruction on the development process, splitting the focus between volumetric imaging and volumetric printing. The engineering tests provide instruction on the process of manufacturing to address a real need; distributing focus among analysis, design, volumetric imaging and volumetric printing. The instructor in this situation may wish to determine which of the activities: analysis, design, volumetric imaging, or volumetric printing, is the focus of any single instructional activity. It was observed during the study that print trials serve a secondary function; the use of sophisticated objects (either those designed by experts or scans made of sculptural art) offered an engaging introduction to 3D printing for people unfamiliar with its processes. Though
TechTrends • September/October 2015
Volume 59, Number 5
print trials lack the creative and problemsolving components of design experiments and engineering tests, they serve as highly motivating illustrations of the printer’s capabilities. For example, the Raspberry Pi case engineering test, though a far more intricate and creative activity overall, did not produce an object as visually arresting and engaging as the Chinese dragon print trial. Print trials can show off the printer’s abilities to students who have not yet engaged in volumetric imaging and printing process, and the prints themselves are useful examples of what can be achieved with the available hardware. For instructional purposes in K-12 settings, print trials, design experiments and engineering tests are probably the appropriate experiences and the hierarchy is based on the complexity of each activity. In an advanced instructional setting, for example a post-secondary engineering program, a fourth 3D printing activity might be included: development of 3D printers. Engineering students may well be involved in the design and production of the printing devices themselves. In this type of setting, the activities may form an iterative cycle of developing printer technology; print trials; design experiments; and engineering tests. The results of the trials, experiments and tests would then lead to revision/refinement of the printing device designs. Understanding the differences among each of the 3D printing activities identified in this study may help educators make better use of 3D printing for instructional purposes. Advocating and supporting the development of makerspaces in schools and libraries, and encouraging STEM activity through the use of 3D printers is popular at the present time. What seems to be missing at the moment is a curriculum that organizes the 3D printing activities in a manner that helps teachers and instructors design and facilitate structured learning events. There are 3D printing lesson plans and suggested activities available; at the time of this writing, a simple Web search using the term “3D printing curriculum” points to numerous classroom activity suggestions, but the vast majority, if not all, of them are focused on how to use the software and hardware involved in the printing process. There seems to be a need to develop a more comprehensive curriculum that addresses the need to understand larger concepts associated with volumetric imaging and production. In addition to more elemental curricular concerns such as vocabulary and concept attainment in which critically important 3D printing vocabulary includes: additive manufacturing, CAD, fabrication, makerspace, mesh, Standard Volume 59, Number 5
Tessellation Language, stereolithography, volumetric imaging, and volumetric printing, and critically important concepts include digitally generating an object mesh and “slicing” a design in preparation for printing, the hierarchical and iterative models of 3D printing activities may provide a starting point for Figure 6. Iterative model of 3D printing activity the development of a more for engineering students. complete and advanced curriculum. As educators, we need to develop instruction that includes larger concepts and vocabulary as opposed to simply running a printer in a classroom for its novelty effect.
Conclusion This study is limited to a single researcher’s experience with 3D printing over a single year’s time. As such it may provide some insight into volumetric imaging and printing in a specific place and time, but care should be taken in generalizing the results to the larger community of educators engaged in 3D printing activity. The observations and discussion points drawn from this study, however, may prove helpful to others engaging in further research on this topic. Further research is certainly recommended. Abbie Brown is a Professor of Instructional Technology at East Carolina University in Greenville, NC. Address correspondence regarding this article to him via email at:
[email protected].
References Aboufadel, E. (2014). 3D printing the MAA logo’s icosahedron. MAA Focus. 7-8. Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business Bell, L., Brown, A., Bull, G., Conly, K., Johnson, L., McAnear, A., Maddux, C., Marks, G., Thompson, A., Schmidt, D., Schrum, L., Smaldino, S., Spector, M., & Sprague, D. (2010). Educational implications of the digital fabrication revolution. TechTrends, 54(5). 2-5. Blender Foundation. (2013). Blender. Retrieved from http://www.blender.org Bull, G., Chiu, J., Berry, R., Lipson, H., & Xie, C. (2014). Advancing children’s engineering through desktop manufacturing. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.) (pp 675-688). New York: Springer. Doctorow, C. (2010). Makers. Tor Books. Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop – from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York: Basic Books.
TechTrends • September/October 2015
23
Hlubinka, M., Dougherty, D., Thomas, P., Chang, S., Hoefer, S., Alexander, I., & McGuire, D. (2013). Makerspace playbook: School edition. Makerspace. com: Maker Media. Retrieved from: http:// makerspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ MakerspacePlaybook-Feb2013.pdf John, M. (2014). How 3D printing is changing the shape of lessons. BBC News, Business. Retrieved from http:// www.bbc.com/news/business-26871084 Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. (n.d.). What is spatial ability? Retrieved from: http://web.jhu.edu/ cty/STBguide.pdf Kharbach, M. (2013). Importance of 3D printing in education. Educational technology and mobile learning. Retrieved from http://www. educatorstechnology.com/2013/03/importance-of3d-printing-in-education.html Kell, H.J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C.P., & Steiger, J.H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological science, 24(9). 1831-1836. Kuwalich, B.B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative social research, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www. qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/466/996 Lagoa. (2010). 3DTin. Retrieved from http://www.3dtin. com Libow Martinez, S., & Stager, G.S. (2014). The maker movement: A learning revolution. Learning and Leading with Technology, 41(7), 12-17.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. Lipson, H., & Kurman, M. (2013). Fabricated: The new world of 3D printing. Wiley. New Media Consortium. (2013). Horizon report: 2013 K-12 education edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/ pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf New Media Consortium. (2014). Horizon report: 2014 higher education edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/ pdf/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf Plewa, J. (2013). Volumetric imaging. Slideshare presentation. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare. net/casereader/volumetric-imaging-20370309 Schaffhauser, D. (2013). 3D Printing in the classroom: 5 tips for bringing new dimensions to your students’ experiences. Retrieved from http://thejournal.com/ Articles/2013/12/11/3D-Printing-in-the-Classroom5-Tips-for-Bringing-New-Dimensions-to-YourStudents-Experiences.aspx?Page=1 Stanford University Computer Graphics Laboratory. (2013). Stanford 3D scanning repository. Retrieved from https://graphics.stanford.edu/data/3Dscanrep/ Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow crash. New York: Bantam Books Wolcott, H.F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Design in Educational Technology:
Design Thinking, Design Process, and the Design Studio Editors: Brad Hokanson, Andrew Gibbons This volume, representing the best papers presented at the 2012 AECT Summer Research Symposium, focuses on the conscious adoption of aspects of design thinking, evident in a range of divergent professions (including business, government, and medicine), extended to the field of education. Design thinking is future oriented, concerned with “the conception and realization of new things,” and at its core is focused on “planning, inventing, making, and doing” (Cross, 1997, p.1), all of which are of value to the field of educational technology.
This is the ideal book for instructional designers, researchers in educational technology and instructional technology, and anyone interested in f inding both new models of designing and new ways to connect theory to the development of a wide range of educational products.
Price: $139 Shipping Included Number of Pages: 273 ISBN: 978-3-319-00926-1
Member Price: $113 Shipping Included Library Edition (Hardcover)
Available directly from the AECT Online Store, click “online store” at the bottom of our homepage or go directly to: https://aectorg.your webhosting.com/store/loginform.asp Also available from http://link.springer.com and www.amazon.com
24
TechTrends • September/October 2015
Volume 59, Number 5
