Greenhalgh, S (2016) The effects of 3D printing in design thinking and design education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), pp. 752-769.
Abstract
Purpose Rapid prototyping and three-dimensional (3D) printing allows the direct creation of objects from 3D computer-aided design files. To identify the effects 3D printing may have on student experiences and the learning of the design process, students were asked to create a design and create a prototype of that design. Design/methodology/approach This study follows an experimental design involving four total courses of interior design students. After conceptualizing a design, students were randomly selected to either create the prototype by hand or given access to 3D printing equipment. The models were graded by three subject experts using a rubric that focused on three key aspects of the model project, namely, craftsmanship, design quality and scale (proportion). Findings All three measures produced significant mean differences with a medium effect size when comparing the 3D printed models to the traditionally built models. Additional observations provided insights into the design processes approached by students using hand-constructed and 3D printed modeling. The most notable difference was the propensity for curved and rectilinear shapes by available design technologies. Research limitations/implications The experiment showed that the design technology (3D printing) did have an impact on the designs students conceptualized. This suggests that students do connect ideation to implementation, and the availability of enabling technology impacts the design process. This research was conducted in an interior design environment and consists of primarily female students. The experimental research may be limited to design programs with similar student populations and levels of exposure to various design technologies. Practical implications This research is designed to provide instructors and programs valuable information when looking at implementing new design technologies into the curriculum. Instructors are made aware that new design technologies do impact student design strategies. Additionally, although certain design technologies allow for revisions, it was apparent that students continued to be resistant to revise their initial models suggesting instructors prepare to address this issue in instruction. Social implications There is a strong body of research indicating inequality in education where students have differing access to technologies in schools. This research shows that 3D printing, similar to many technologies in education, can impact the cognitive processes of content being learned. Originality/value There is limited research on how design technologies impact design cognition and the experiences of design students. This paper looked specifically at one design technology (3D printing/rapid prototyping) and how it impacts the processes and quality of design, in addition to the quality of design products (prototypes or models). Research such as this provides instructors and faculty members an insight into how design technologies impact their curriculum.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design; design education; architectural design; design strategies; design cognition; rapid prototyping; 3d printing; interior design; design models; prototypes |
| Index terms: | interior design, instructor, design process, design model, design quality, design strategy, 3D printing, prototype, experiment, methodology, program, population, design cognition, computer aided design, design education, rapid prototyping, exposure, architectural design, experimental design, student experience, inequality, implementation, modelling |
| Subjects: | design process, public and environmental health, research methods, software systems, design practice, student development, sociology, professional education, cognitive psychology, demography, specialized design, practitioner, design methods, research design and methodology, manufacturing, data collection methods, computational design, analytical methods, contractual arrangements, professional practice, innovation and technology management, modelling and simulation |
| Topics: | Education, Ethics, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here