See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308204531

3D printing in education: a literature review

Working Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 11,426

2 authors:

Simon Ford Tim Minshall

Simon Fraser University University of Cambridge
47 PUBLICATIONS   797 CITATIONS    150 PUBLICATIONS   1,112 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

3DP-RDM: Defining the research agenda for 3D printing enabled re-distributed manufacturing View project

Development of a UK National Strategy for Additive Manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Ford on 18 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3D printing in education: a literature review
Version 1.0 – 17 September 2016

Simon Ford1,2* and Tim Minshall1

1
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge, CB3
0FS, UK
2
Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada

* Corresponding author: simon_ford@sfu.ca

The final, substantially revised, version of this paper can be found here:

 Published in Additive Manufacturing: https://dfab.it/3DPinTeaching

 ResearchGate preprint: https://dfab.it/3DPinTeachingPreprint

Acknowledgements: this work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council [grant number EP/K039598/1].

Abstract
This paper provides a review of literature concerning the application of 3D printing in the education
system. It considers two questions: where and how is 3DP being used in the educational system?
The review identifies that 3DP is being applied across the K-12 spectrum and in universities, as well
as in libraries, makespaces, and special education settings, although adoption is isolated in pockets
of excellence and faces integration challenges. University libraries in particular are a rich source of
insight into their adoption. The review also finds that 3DP is being used to teach both students and
educators about 3DP and to develop 3DP skills; to develop design skills and methodologies for
creativity; and to create artefacts that can be used as learning aids or as assistive technologies in
special learning settings.

1. Introduction
3D printing (henceforth 3DP) and its near synonym, additive manufacturing, are digital fabrication
technologies that are gradually disrupting the industrial system. While 3DP continues to be used
effectively in rapid prototyping and tooling, it is in the application of 3DP as a direct manufacturing
technology that is bringing about wider systemic disruption.

This disruption is occurring as 3DP finds traction in those niches in which its current level of
technological sophistication matches with market needs. Improvements to the technology are being
made in terms of productive throughput and quality, but a number of studies and reports
investigating 3DP and digital fabrication have warned that a lack of 3DP education and skills
represents a key barrier to its wider adoption (Royal Academy of Engineering, 2013; Government
Office for Science, 2013; EC, 2014; Despeisse et al., 2016).

Accordingly it becomes necessary to investigate the current status of research relating to the
application of 3DP in the education system. For the purpose of this review, the education system
covers primary and secondary schools, along with further and higher education institutions. It
considers the application of 3DP for educational rather than research purposes. Furthermore, the
application of 3DP for educational purposes in an industrial context is not considered in this review.
We ask two questions in this review:

1. Where is 3DP being used in the educational system?

2. How is 3DP being used in the educational system?

From reviewing prior studies of 3DP it is found that research has focused on how students learn
about 3DP; how educators learn about the technology; how design skills and methodologies for
creativity are taught; and how learning can be supported through the production of artefacts. Such
activities are taking place across the K-12 spectrum and in universities, as well as in libraries,
makespaces, and special education settings. Before answering these questions in detail, we set the
scene with brief overviews of 3DP and the application of digital fabrication technology in education.

2. Background
2.1 3DP overview
In contrast to other general purpose technologies, 3DP actually describes a range of technologies
that digitally fabricate three dimensional objects on an additive layer-by-layer basis. Its official
nomenclature of “additive manufacturing” (AM) is defined as “a process of joining materials to make
objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing
methodologies” (ASTM, 2012). ASTM recognises seven methods of AM, with a wide range of
products available on the market based on these types. Some of the most widely adopted 3DP
technologies include fused deposition modelling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), selective laser
sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and digital light processing (DLP), but new additive
processes continue to be developed and commercialised (Petrovic et al., 2011). While 3DP first used
polymers for prototyping, a much wider variety of polymers, metal alloys, composites and ceramics
have been developed for applications in digital manufacturing, with their use dictated by the type of
3DP process used and their intended application (Guo and Leu, 2013).

As an additive manufacturing process, 3DP sits in contrast to other subtractive and transformative
manufacturing processes. 3DP possesses a number of advantages relative to these processes.
However, as an emerging technology, it is still in development; it has yet to fully realise its full
performance and there are additional socioeconomic challenges to overcome based on the novelty
of the technology. A summary of these advantages and challenges is provided in Table 1.

Stratasys and 3D Systems are currently the leading companies in the 3DP industry. They trace their
origins to the first 3DP patents that were developed in the mid-1980s, and have transitioned from
being purely focused on the application of 3DP in rapid prototyping to its wider application in digital
manufacturing. The emergence of the sector has attracted new entrants in both the professional
and consumer segments. The majority of new entrants have come in the latter. The explosion in
consumer 3DP originated with the RepRap project, an open source project to create a self-
replicating robot. This project attracted significant interest globally from members of the Maker
movement. The combination of this project and the rise of crowdfunding platforms such as
Kickstarter and Indiegogo has enabled numerous entrepreneurial ventures to launch onto the
market (Bosqué, 2015; West and Kuk, 2016).

The 3D printer itself is just one component in the larger 3DP business ecosystem. In addition to the
machine manufacturers, the 3DP ecosystem includes companies that produce 3D scanning
technologies, CAD software and materials, along with service bureaus and online distribution
platforms (Piller et al., 2014). On top of this are the rapidly growing number of companies that are
making use of 3DP to realise some of the benefits outlined in Table 1. These include (but are not
limited to): safety-critical aerospace components; prosthetics and orthotics; hearing aids; dental
implants; hip and knee implants; jewellery; wearables; toys; sportswear; food; and educational
objects. The list of applications continues to grow as designers, engineers and entrepreneurs identify
new opportunities to apply the technology as its performance improves.

Table 1. Advantages and challenges of additive manufacturing (Ford and Despeisse, 2016)
Advantages Challenges

● Small batches of customised products are ● Cost and speed of production

economically attractive relative to traditional
mass production methods
● Direct production from 3D CAD models mean
that no tools and moulds are required, so there
are no switch over costs
● Designs in the form of digital files can be easily
shared, facilitating the modification and
customisation of components and products
● The additive nature of the process gives
material savings, as does the ability to reuse
waste material (i.e. powder, resin) not used
during manufacture (estimated at 95-98%
recyclability for metal powders)
● Novel, complex structures, such as free-form
enclosed structures and channels, and lattices
are achievable
● Final parts have very low porosity
● Making to order reduces inventory risk, with
no unsold finished goods, while also improving
revenue flow as goods are paid for prior to
being manufactured
● Distribution allows direct interaction between
local consumer/client and producer
● Changing the way that designers think about
and approach the use of additive
manufacturing
● Removing the perception that AM is only for
rapid prototyping and not for direct component
and product manufacture
● Development and standardisation of new
materials
● Validation of the mechanical and thermal
properties of existing materials and AM
technologies
● Development of multi-material and multi-
colour systems
● Automation of AM systems and process
planning to improve manufacturing efficiency
● Post-processing is often required. This may be
due to the stair stepping effect that arises from
incrementally placing one layer on top of
another, or because finishing layers are needed
● Support structure materials cannot be recycled
so need to be minimised through a good build-
up orientation
● Intellectual property issues, particularly
regarding copyright
● Deficits in designers and engineers skilled in
additive manufacturing
● Non-linear, localised collaboration with ill-
defined roles and responsibilities
● Continuously changing set of competitors

2.2 Digital fabrication technologies and education

The recognition that digital fabrication technologies can support education is not new. Early
recognition of its potential was made by architecture educators. Prof. William Mitchell at MIT’s
School of Architecture and Planning set up the first digital fabrication laboratory within an
architecture school in the late 1990s. Digital fabrication technologies were used in research to
produce scale models and for exploring new techniques in graduate elective subjects. This later
became the Digital Design Fabrication Group (http://ddf.mit.edu/) (Celani, 2012).

The emergence of digital fabrication technologies engendered early excitement about their potential
in education. In 2001, Mark, Martens and Oxman commented that: “3D Modellers, 3D Scanners,
immersive Virtual Environment and Rapid Prototyping are used to assist both students and teachers
to explore and study architectural creativity in a new way that enables a deeper involvement into
design-issues” (Mark, Martens and Oxman 2001). They remarked that after developing the necessary
IT, modelling and production skills, students could rapidly prototype, reducing the attachments that
their felt towards their designs, and with the ability to more easily modify their designs as new ideas
emerged.

Alongside the excitement about the educational potential of digital fabrication technologies, there
grew a recognition that their adoption would have systemic consequences for the domain.
“Fabrication is not a modeling technique, but a revolution in the making of architecture” (Oxman and
Oxman, 2010, p.23). Given the changes that result from using digital fabrication in architectural
education and engineering design, it has been suggested that a “cultural shift” has been needed
(Oxman and Oxman, 2010), alongside revisions to the teaching curriculum, new approaches to digital
thinking, and how to foster collaborative environments (Paio et al. (2012).

While architectural educators were early adopters of digital fabrication technologies, other
disciplines also began to recognise the technology’s potential. Commenting on its potential, Berry et
al. (2010) claimed that digital fabrication “can facilitate the introduction of engineering design and
manufacturing concepts into early education” (Berry et al., 2010, p.168). Meanwhile, digital
fabrication was seen to be able to create cross-linkages between science, technology, engineering
and mathematics (STEM) subjects in ways that “increases the likelihood that they will be learned in a
meaningful context” (Bull et al., 2010, p.336). For students working in these technical disciplines,
personal digital fabrication was seen as providing “the opportunity to see their ideas make the trip
from concept to physical form … for the first time” (Bull and Groves, 2009, p.36).

Several further benefits of incorporating digital fabrication into teaching were suggested.
Commenting on elementary school teaching, Berry et al. (2010) believed that when using digital
fabrication in combination with a stimulating task, it could facilitate learning, develop skills and
increase student engagement. To realise this potential would require that elementary teachers’
competence and interest in teaching STEM content be increased, particularly with regard to
engineering design and mathematics (Berry et al., 2010, pp.169-70). Similarly, in reviewing the
benefits of incorporating digital fabrication technologies into K-12 education, Smith (2013) identified
prior work indicating that it can inspire creativity in students, improve their attitudes towards STEM
subjects and careers, and increase their mathematical knowledge, while also increasing teachers’
interest and engagement.

To this end of cultivating positive STEM attitudes and developing the necessary engineering design
skills, four infrastructure components were identified as necessary:

1. Digital fabrication hardware for the classroom

2. Digital design software for the classroom
3. A digital fabrication library and collaborative space
4. A curriculum that incorporates engineering design principles (Berry et al., 2010, p.170).

3. The application of 3D printing in the educational system

As a specific form of digital fabrication technology, the emergence of more affordable, low-cost 3DP
has opened up the potential for its adoption within the education system. While its initial application
has been described as “somewhat of a novelty” some believe that it will become as ubiquitous as the
photocopier (Horejsi, 2014, p.10). This review of existing studies sets out to identify where and how
3DP is being used in the education system.

3.1 Where is 3DP being used in the education system?

As with digital fabrication technologies in general, the first subjects for which 3DP’s application
potential was recognised were in technical classes such as engineering and physical sciences. As Olla
(2015) commented “Education is being transformed with the introduction of 3D rapid prototyping in
many university engineering classes. High school students are also using the 3DP to create
experiential learning opportunities […] Medical education is being transformed by the use of 3D
printing. It is also being used in high schools to teach science, technology, engineering, arts and math
(STEAM) concepts” (Olla, 2015, p.77).

In addition, it is also finding specific applications in libraries and special education settings. At
present, its adoption is far from universal and is limited to specific pockets of excellence. Given that
some of the papers did not distinguish between the different stages of K-12 education, elementary
schools and high schools are clustered together in this discussion.

3.1.1 3D printing in schools

Several advantages of 3D printed artefacts relative to virtual, screen-based artefacts are offered by
Eisenberg (2013), including self-directed construction, physical tactility, the improved capacity for
independent and introverted work, and the improved observability of the physical artefacts that are
created. Eisenberg notes that “a move toward child-accessible fabrication can serve as a salutary
counterweight to the current culture of children’s technology” (Eisenberg, 2013, p.13). Unpacking the
promise of innovative design in 3DP involves the following five challenges:

1. Expanding the range of physical media available for printing

2. Incorporating ideas derived from ‘‘pick-and-place’’ mechanisms into 3D printing
3. Exploring methods for creating portable and ubiquitous printing devices
4. Creating tools for hand-customization and finishing of tangible printed objects
5. Devising software techniques for specifying, altering, and combining 3D elements in the
context of printing (Eisenberg, 2013, p.8).

In their three month study of the adoption of 3D printing in two Greek high schools, Kostakis et al.
(2015) identified several challenges.

1. Although most students possessed basic ICT skills, there were significant differences in
student’s technological literacy and attitudes towards engaging with new technologies.
2. Giving students the freedom to create artefacts with few restrictions led to significant
variety and made it difficult for teachers to consult and troubleshoot.
3. The cost of 3DP, even when the 3DP is open source
4. Teachers needing to keep up to speed with advances in technology (Kostakis et al., 2015;
p.126)

Their overall observation was that incorporating 3DP into teaching was positive and that it helped
students be more creative. In terms of pedagogy, the use of 3DP enabled different learning styles to
be practiced, with this particularly useful in engaging certain students: “We have seen that students,
who were otherwise indifferent (according to them and their teachers) about their project class,
when given proper stimulation and the necessary tools can choose what to learn themselves through
exploration […] Then proudly share their results with others while they acquire knowledge instead of
dry information out of textbooks” (Kostakis et al., 2015, p.127).

Elsewhere, there are examples of elementary school students developing 3DP skills through the real-
world case of creating a prosthetic hand (Cook et al., 2015), and that demonstrating the use of 3DP
can have oral presentation benefits (Schelly et al., 2015).
3.1.2 3D printing in universities
Faculty at Roanoke College’s Department of Biology have investigated how 3D printing can be used
to enhance teaching in the classroom (McGahern et al., 2015). They found the benefit of 3D printing
to produce biological models as visual learning aids.

3DP has been adopted in a more integrated fashion at Griffith University’s Product Design Studio,
where it has been incorporated into first year student teaching. Incorporating it into the syllabus has
had three main effects: (1) it has promoted student-centred learning and led to observable
improvements in student work; (2) it has changed the relationship between students and lecturers
as eLearning has taken place; and (3) it links the student’s learning to their ethical responsibilities in
the world, such as environmental sustainability (Loy, 2014). The second point is an important one as
student-centred learning involves the balance of power within the learning experience shifting from
the lecturer to the student. Traditionally, the lecturer would have significant practical expertise to
impart to the students; however this often not the case with a novel technology such as 3DP. In
addition, the novelty of the technology means that internet resources are more accurate and up-to-
date than the limited number of 3DP publications. Given the pace of 3DP developments, Loy
comments that “the student is as likely – more so as a cohort – to be bringing new information on
the spread of the technology to the classroom as the lecturer” (Loy, 2014, p.113). This means that
the lecturer will be learning alongside the class, acting less as a leader and more as a mentor to the
class. Experiences at Griffith University indicated that a ‘flipped classroom’ approach as part of a
blended learning strategy was positive for both lecturers and students.

3.1.3 3D printing in libraries

The library as a place in which 3DP takes place is the focus of several studies (Groenendyk and
Gallant, 2013; Massis, 2013; Moorefield-Lang, 2014; Plemmons, 2014; Van Epps et al., 2015) and is
currently the richest category in terms of insights. These papers consider libraries in schools
(Plemmons, 2014), universities (Groenendyk and Gallant, 2013; Van Epps et al., 2015), and a
combination of the two along with public libraries (Massis, 2013; Moorefield-Lang, 2014).

The use of 3DP in libraries is divisive. Critics argue that the use of 3DP in the library is an “exotic
cutting-edge technology-based service and a mere extravagance or an unnecessary expense for what
might only be a select number of patrons” (Massis, 2013, p.353). Massis counters this perspective,
answering the question of “Why in a library?” by quoting the librarian and scholar David Lankes:

“Because that is the core of the library – not the collection – idea creation and
knowledge generation. Those books and stacks, and printers, and bathrooms, and study
rooms, and tape players, and microfiche readers are just tools to get at what librarians
are really supposed to be doing [. . .] helping the community create knowledge and know
itself.” (Lankes, 2013)

The librarian can play an important role in the integration of 3DP into the school or university. As
Mark Ray, Chief Digital Officer of Vancouver Public Schools comments: “School libraries can serve as
test beds. As others follow our lead, teacher librarians can play a valuable role, supporting educators
for whom this brave new world represents change and uncertainty” (Plemmons, 2014, p.16).
As central, non-departmental spaces, libraries can remove barriers to participation. As Van Epps et
al. (2015) explain: “The library is often seen as a non-disciplinary or cross-disciplinary space on
campus, where access to the materials and services is available to all users. By bringing 3D printing
into our libraries, access to 3D printers moves beyond gated access for a few to general access for
all” (Van Epps et al., 2015, p.17).
In their 3D printing and scanning pilot projects at Dalhousie University Library, Groenendyk and
Gallant (2013) explain how the library sought “to take the knowledge-sharing, innovation-driven
ideals of hackerspaces and bring these into an academic library setting” (p.35). The library sought to
make 3DP accessible to students beyond those in engineering and architecture that already had
access. The 3D printing and scanning technologies were purchased on the basis of affordability and
usability. In addition, the librarians hoped that the 3D scanner would enable various scientific and
cultural artefacts to be digitized and archived online. “In creating this collection the Libraries will help
to provide online exposure for both student and faculty work, as well as ensure that the 3D
information collected remained preserved and freely available.”

A number of issues were considered, including staff training and equipment troubleshooting. It was
found that learning to use 3DP was not particularly difficult for anyone with basic computer skills
and library IT staff were able to act as a helpdesk for maintenance issues that arose. The biggest
challenges came about when attempting to print something that had not been designed with 3DP in
mind. Re-designs were needed in many cases, with some guidance from library staff as to what
needed to be done. Similarly, 3D scanning wasn’t perfect straightaway and librarians needed to
instruction students on the best way to scan objects. For both 3D printing and scanning, they
propose that courses and demonstrations should be made available to students so that they could
learn how to use them more effectively. Other concerns about health and safety were not realised
as the choice of PLA filament proved to be no threat to human health (Groenendyk and Gallant,
2013).

The need for student training is echoed by Moorefield-Lang (2014), who also describes the needs for
staff training, in addition to funding and planning in the operation of library makespaces. Running a
makespace in a library requires a number of operational issues to be addressed. These questions
include:

 What are the hours of the maker space?

 How will it be staffed?
 Can patrons use the technology in the maker space on their own or is there always a staff,
faculty member, or student assistant available?
 Will we have a user agreement?
 Should patrons be trained before using the technologies? (Moorefield-Lang, 2014, p.593)

The issue of funding is also raised by Plemmons (2014). Working in a school library, he relies on a
combination of grants, fundraisers and donations to support his 3DP teaching and maintain
sufficient supplies of 3DP consumables.

3.1.4 3D printing in special education settings

Using 3DP in special education to create assistive technologies for those with visual (Jo et al., 2016;
Stangl et al., 2015), motor (Buehler et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2015) and cognitive impairments, or a
combination of the three (Buehler et al., 2015, 2016).

In their multi-faceted investigation into how 3DP can support students with special needs, Buehler et
al. (2016) found that 3DP serves three functions: (1) greater engagement with STEM subjects; (2) the
creation of educational aids; and (3) the creation of custom adaptive devices. In one part of the
study, cognitively-impaired students were given tutorials on using Tinkercad software and then
encouraged to create their own 3D designs. However, the combination of task difficulty and limited
time meant that most students did not create their own designs, instead printing or modifying
designs from open-source sites. Student interest in completing custom designs appeared to decrease
due to the challenge of using the software, with difficulties observed in changing views and
manipulating objects. Furthermore, the ability to design in three dimensions was particularly
challenging for students with high support needs. Other adoption challenges arose from the
occupational therapists who worked with the students. While enthusiastic about the potential of
3DP, they were concerned about the effort required on their part to learn how to use the software;
“they currently see the task of 3D design and printing to be someone else’s work, and see themselves
as consumers of that work” (Buehler et al., 2016, p.12). A summary of stakeholder perceptions
regarding the use of 3DP in special education settings is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of stakeholder perceptions, adapted from Buehler et al. (2016)

3DP background and Perceptions
responsibilities
Administrators  No hands-on experience of  Concerned with safety regulations and
3DP standards for equipment but considered
 Involved in management of 3DP safe to use with supervision
personnel, curriculum  Optimistic that students could design and
design and/or site planning produce custom objects with ease
 Interested in students making educational
aids and assistive objects
 Believed that use of 3DP developed
employability skills and a way of practicing
STEM
 Not unduly concerned with the time
required for students or staff to learn 3DP
Occupational  Limited prior exposure to  Recognised potential applications of 3DP
therapists 3DP with knowledge for creating adaptive and assistive devices
originating from media  Positive about customising objects for
coverage and local word-of- their students
mouth  Recognised the need for more time and
 Direct involvement with exposure to 3DP before further
students possibilities could be realised
 Concerned about the time investment to
learn how to use 3DP software to create
customised objects
 Few concerns about safety due to
presence of existing protocols
 Interested in alternative 3DP materials,
particularly soft textiles and rubber- or
foam-based filaments
Technology  Most well versed in 3D  Considered time management, software
instructors design, printing and complexity and hardware reliability as
maintenance processes most serious obstacles to incorporating
 Primary point of contact 3DP into curriculum
with 3DP  Limited time to master 3DP technologies
 Concerned about steep learning curve for
students learning 3DP software and
managing their expectations and
motivation
 Concerned about disruptive effects of
print failures and struggles with design
software
3.1.5 International dimension of 3D printing adoption in the education system
The authorship of the papers included in this review is indicative of the maturity of 3DP’s adoption in
the education system. The vast majority of authors are from the developed world, with the majority
of authors coming from North America, along with several papers from Europe, Australia and South
Korea. Replicating the use of 3DP in the classroom in developing countries has been advocated by
Ishengoma and Mtaho (2014), although there are as yet no papers describing such adoption.

3.2 How is 3DP being used in the educational system?

3.2.1 Teaching students about 3D printing
In the first instance, 3DP is being used to teach students about 3DP and develop 3DP skills
(Eisenberg, 2013; Kostakis et al., 2015; Loy, 2014; McGahern et al., 2015; Plemmons, 2014). The
major downside to doing this is the speed of 3DP and the time it takes for larger prints to be created.
One strategy used by Plemmons (2014) in his classes is to have the whole class watch the beginning
of the print so they are part of the printing process. As he comments “it is unrealistic to think that
students will sit and watch the entire print take place while they are missing instruction in their
classroom” (Plemmons, 2014, p.16).

The provision of 3DP in libraries and makespaces provides students with the opportunity to learn
about 3DP should they be motivated to do so (Groenendyk and Gallant, 2013; Moorefield-Lang,
2014). Although not explicitly stated in the articles reviewed, this usage may be to satisfy particular
project needs from the courses studied or as part of extracurricular activities. Librarians use multiple
methods to train students, including demonstrations and workshops, as well as online tutorials and
videos. The range of training methods provides students with multiple ways by which they can
access 3DP education (Moorefield-Lang, 2014).

In one elementary school, fourth graders (9-10 years old) created a prosthetic hand, an
interdisciplinary learning experience that was embedded in real-life and addressed a local need
(Cook et al., 2015). Meanwhile, the use of 3DP at a small, rural school in Michigan also had an
unexpected cross-curriculum benefit in the form of improving oral presentation skills. This has
occurred as a result of students completing demonstrations with the printer and needing to improve
their ability to present and communicate their learning (Schelly et al., 2015, p.235).

3.2.2 Teaching educators about 3D printing

A second use of 3DP in the education system is the use of 3DP to teach educators about 3DP and for
them to develop 3DP skills (Schelly et al., 2015; Verner and Merksamer, 2015; Moorefield-Lang,
2014). The most direct example of teaching educators about 3D printing comes from Shelley et al.
(2015) who describe a 3.5 day training workshop in which 22 middle school and high school teachers
from Michigan participated. The workshop involved participants working in pairs to construct an
open source 3D printer that originated from the RepRap project, and discussed how incorporating
the technology into teaching could benefit students. They identified four ways.

1. Integrating STEM, career and technical education (CTE) and other class subjects through
cross-curriculum education;
2. Empowering students through active learning;
3. Engaging students who are relatively non-involved, either because of boredom or
perceptions of non-relevance;
4. Transforming educational processes so that students are makers and creators rather than
passive consumers of knowledge and products (Schelly et al., 2015, p.232).
At their Technology Education Laboratory at Technion University in Israel, Verner and Merksamer
(2015) incorporated 3DP into their teaching. They created a new course for technology educators in
which the “conceive, design, implement and operate” (CDIO) approach was central. Student
teachers learned about the benefit of 3DP models as teaching aids and ice-breakers. Noting how
engaged students were, one student teacher commented: “The pupils said that the printed models
were very cool. They enjoyed holding the model, examining it and even took photos of the models”
(Verner and Merksamer, 2015, p.185).

In her review of 3DP in libraries, Moorefield-Lang (2014) describes some of the characteristics that
faculty and staff needed when investigating the application of 3DP. Common descriptors included
“Trial and error, experimentation, going with the flow, patience, and time” (Moorefield-Lang, 2014,
p.591). Peer learning was necessary, either in physical space or on social media, with visits to other
schools, libraries, makespace and museums helpful in learning about how 3DP could be integrated
into their libraries. She commented that “While this technology is becoming more prevalent, having
a spirit of investigation and little fear of failure is important” (Moorefield-Lang, 2014, p.591).

Knowledgeable and enthusiastic librarians can help educate teachers, particularly when such
teachers are uncomfortable with the uncertainty that arises from novel 3DP projects. Detailed
planning and blogs documenting the process are ways in which librarians can assist teachers and
help overcome their fears (Plemmons, 2014).

3.2.3 Using 3D printing to teach design and creativity skills and methodologies
Beyond the direct use of 3DP to learn about 3DP, the technology can also be used to develop skills
and methodologies in design and creativity (Buehler et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2015; Hofmann et al.,
2016; Junk and Matt, 2015; Loy, 2014; Paio et al., 2012).

Incorporating 3DP into the Design Studio at Griffith University was done as part of an eLearning and
eMaking learning strategy, with the objective of helping students who are highly comfortable with
virtual environments bring them greater confidence with the tangible, tactile, physical domain
where they have become increasingly uncomfortable. As Loy comments, “As 3D-computer-modelling
has developed, the proportion of time the student spends in the virtual environment has increased,
taking time away from the studio and from practical workshops. By linking a form of physical making
directly to the 3D virtual environment, 3D printing builds on that computer confidence, rather than
works outside of it […] Three-dimensional printing enables the students to realize the sophisticated
models they imagine, based on their expertise in 3D computer-based modelling, not based on their
skills in the traditional workshop” (Loy, 2014, p.110).

The creation of 3D models is an important precursor to 3DP. In their work, Junk and Matt (2015)
tested three approaches to the acquisition of 3D designs with their students. In the first, students
downloaded existing designs from a database. In this way students were made aware of the
technical capabilities of 3DP, the materials used, the design constraints, and the variety of potential
application areas for 3DP. The second approach involved independent design. As they comment
“students were turned from passive consumers (database users) into active and creative users
grappling with the possibilities and limits of the 3D printing process” (Junk and Matt, 2015, p.40).
Consequently, students gained significant experience of 3D modelling for 3DP, in terms of the
geometric design, stability and colour scheme. Finally, the third approach involved 3D scanning, with
students learning about the possibilities and limitations of 3D scanning, along with how to prepare
this captured data for 3D printing. Testing out each of these three approaches meant that “…
students are then able to learn how technical hardware specifications impact on part design and how
these limits might be overcome” (Junk and Matt, 2015, p.36).
3.2.4 Using 3D printing to product artefacts that aid learning
3DP has been used to produce artefacts to aid learning in a number of subjects. The richest of these
is anatomy (AbouHashem, 2015; McMenamin et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2016; Vaccarazza and Papa,
2015; Van Epps et al., 2015), but there are also examples from disciplines such as English (Van Epps
et al., 2015), geosciences (Horowitz and Schultz, 2014), and STEM (Armesto et al., 2016; Krupke et
al., 2015; Kelley et al., 2016).

In anatomy, 3DP has been used to create replicas of bones (AbouHashem et al., 2015) and skeletons
(Thomas et al., 2016), prosected specimens based on CT data sets (McMenamin et al., 2014), and
kidneys (Bernhard et al., 2016), although the 3DP kidney models were used for patient education
regarding nephritic conditions rather than student teaching.

AbouHashem et al. (2015) used 3D surface scans of bones from the Macquarie University Skeletal
Collection. They chose to start their 3DP project with bones because they thought their
monochrome colour and hard tissue composition would make them the easiest part of the human
body to reproduce with 3DP. The benefits of doing so are that further reproductions can be made at
low cost and that students can examine these replicas without damaging the originals (AbouHashem
et al., 2015). It is though that creating 3DP models for anatomical teaching and surgical training
could reduce demand for human body parts and allay ethical and legal concerns regarding the use of
cadavers (Vaccarezza and Papa, 2015). While acknowledging that 3DP models should act as an
adjunct to actual dissection, McMenamin et al. (2014) list a number of advantages of such copies:
“durability, accuracy, ease of reproduction, cost effectiveness, and the avoidance of health and safety
issues associated with wet fixed cadaver specimens or plastinated specimens” (McMenamin et al.,
2014, p.484).

In the case of STEM, there are accounts of how 3DP has been used to create customised robots
rather than with the intent of teaching students about 3D printing (Armesto et al., 2016), and to help
students learn about bio-mimicry concepts (Kelley et al., 2016).

The use of 3DP, coupled with expanded open-access terrestrial and space data sets, can lead to the
creation of low-cost tactile maps that provide geoscientific educational benefits (Horowitz and
Schultz, 2014). As they comment, 3D visualisations are limited but that 3D physical models “can
provide enhanced intuitive grasp of data sets for the public” (Horowitz and Schultz, 2014, p.138). In
this particular domain, the portability of 3DP is also an advantage because it allows it to be
transported to different sites, such as temporary classrooms, workshops, or exhibits. For students
creating their own models, there is the additional benefit of gaining experience of the design and
programming skills.

The overall benefit of creating such learning aids is summarised succinctly by Horowitz and Schultz
(2014), who comment that “the simple ability to rotate a physical object can often bring new
elements into view for evaluation that would not be detectable using digital models alone” (Horowitz
and Schultz, 2014, p.142).

Sometimes the learning about 3DP is self-initiated on the part of the student. In their exploration of
the application of 3DP in class, McGahern et al. (2015) intended that 3DP be used in their biology
classes to produce visual aids. However, given access to a 3D printer, one student recognised the
value in completing an assignment using 3DP even when it was not a requirement. As the student
reported:
 “I feel using the 3D printer to design and create a project allowed me to learn a lot more
about the subject than I otherwise would have. However, the most valuable part of this
project was the skill set I gained in learning how to operate 3D software and upload and
print these designs. Knowing how to use a 3D printer as an undergraduate student gives
me an edge and a skill that sets me apart from other students and makes me more
marketable in the modern employment market.” (McGahern et al., 2015, p.377)

As a consequence of this student’s initiative, the educators have re-designed their teaching to
encompass more 3D design activities into their teaching.

3.2.5 Using 3DP to create assistive technologies

There are several examples of 3DP being used to create assistive technologies for those with visual
(Jo et al., 2016; Stangl et al., 2015), motor (Buehler et al., 2014; Cook et al., 2015) and cognitive
impairments, or a combination of the three (Buehler et al., 2015, 2016). There are two broad
categories of use: (1) when the artefacts created using 3DP are for actual use by those needing
assistive technologies, and (2) when the needs of those with special learning needs provides a real-
world framing to student projects. In the former category, are studies such as that by Horowitz and
Schultz (2014), which explored the use of 3DP as a low-cost means of producing tactile geoscientific
maps, thereby expanding the quality and quality of materials for the visually impaired. In the second
category, are examples such as the creation of tactile stories for the visually impaired as part of a
middle and high school IB programme for design and technology in Denver (Stangl et al., 2015), and
the development of a prosthetic hand in a school project by fourth graders (Cook et al., 2015).

4. Conclusions
This paper has summarised the existing research that has been conducted into the application of
3DP into the educational system. It provides a state of the art review in answering the two questions
of where and how 3DP is being used in the educational system. What is apparent from this review is
that the use of 3DP in the educational system remains in its infancy, and the study of its application
even moreso. This does not come as a surprise given the uncertainty and ambiguity that surrounds
the technology’s capabilities and its future performance improvements, coupled with the financial
limitations that educational institutions face.

Looking beyond this review, there is a growing number of 3DP organisations are providing
educational support. Companies such as Tinkerine and Ultimaker are prioritising the educational
sector as they seek to promote 3DP and their systems. How such organisations do this and the
effectiveness of their programmes has yet to be documented and would provide valuable insights
from which educators could learn. Moreover, some educational institutions are starting to recognise
the value and attractiveness of 3DP education to potential students and are introducing specific 3DP
courses into their curricula. Lessons from the creation and operation of these courses would also be
valuable for others considering doing the same.

Another aspect that is interesting about 3DP, as well as their use in libraries and makespaces, is their
potential for entrepreneurship. As Olla (2015) comments “The diffusion of consumer-grade 3D
printing products is creating a new genre of entrepreneurs” (p.75). In addition to the adoption of 3DP
into the education system, there is the need to not just consider the effects of 3DP on design and
creativity, but also to investigate its effects on attitudes towards entrepreneurship and innovation.
This is another aspect of 3DP’s adoption that is worthy of study. Given the contribution of
entrepreneurs in creating new economic and societal value, in the future 3DP may have an
important part to play in supporting such entrepreneurial activity; understanding where in the
curriculum it is most effectively taught is an important precursor to implementing programmes that
stimulate positive change.

Bibliography
AbouHashem, Y., Dayal, M., Savanah, S., & Strkalj, G. (2015). The application of 3D printing in
anatomy education. Med Educ Online, 20, 29847.
Armesto, L., Fuentes-Durá, P., & Perry, D. (2015). Low-cost Printable Robots in Education. Journal of
Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 5-24.
ASTM (2012). ASTM F2792-12a: Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bernhard, J. C., Isotani, S., Matsugasumi, T., Duddalwar, V., Hung, A. J., Suer, E., Baco, E.,
Satkunasivam, R., Djaladat, H., Metcalfe, C., Hu, B., Wong, K., Park, D., Nguyen, M., Hwang, D.,
Bazargani, S. T., de Castro Abreu, A. L., Aron, M., Ukimura, O., & Gill, I. S. (2016). Personalized 3D
printed model of kidney and tumor anatomy: a useful tool for patient education. World J Urol, 34(3),
337-345.
Berry, R. Q., III, Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C. D., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. H. (2010).
Preliminary considerations regarding use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design
principles in elementary mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 10(2), 167-172.
Bosqué, C. (2015). What are you printing? Ambivalent emancipation by 3D printing. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 21(5), 572–581.
Buehler, E., Hurst, A., & Hofmann, M. (2014). Coming to grips. 291-292.
Buehler, E., Branham, S., Ali, A., Chang, J. J., Hofmann, M. K., Hurst, A., & Kane, S. K. (2015). Sharing
is Caring. 525-534.
Buehler, E., Comrie, N., Hofmann, M., McDonald, S., & Hurst, A. (2016). Investigating the
Implications of 3D Printing in Special Education. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 8(3), 1-
28.
Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The Democratization of Production. Learning and Leading with
Technology, 36-37.
Bull, G., Maddox, C., Marks, G., McAnear, A., Schmidt, D., Schrum, L., & Smaldino, S. (2010)
Educational Implications of the Digital Fabrication Revolution. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(4); 331-338.
Celani, G. (2012). Digital Fabrication Laboratories: Pedagogy and Impacts on Architectural Education.
Nexus Network Journal, 14(3), 469-482.
Cook, K. L., Bush, S. B., & Cox, R. (2015). Creating a Prosthetic Hand: 3D Printers Innovate and Inspire
a Maker Movement. Science and Children, 80-85.
Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S.J., Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S.,
Minshall, T., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F. & Rowley, J. (2016). Unlocking value for a circular
economy through 3D printing: a research agenda. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
Forthcoming.
EC (2014). Additive Manufacturing in FP7 and Horizon 2020: Report from the EC Workshop on
Additive Manufacturing held on 18 June 2014.
Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7-13.
Ford, S.J., & Despeisse, M. (2016). Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of
the advantages and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1573-1587.
Government Office for Science (2013). What are the significant trends shaping technology relevant
to manufacturing? Future of Manufacturing Project: Evidence Paper 6.
Groenendyk, M., & Gallant, R. (2013). 3D printing and scanning at the Dalhousie University Libraries:
a pilot project. Library Hi Tech, 31(1), 34-41.
Guo, N., & Leu, M.C. (2013). Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs.
Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 215-243.
Hofmann, M., Harris, J., Hudson, S. E., & Mankoff, J. (2016). Helping Hands. 1769-1780.
Horejsi, M. (2014). Teaching STEM with a 3D Printer. The Science Teacher, 10.
Horowitz, S. S., & Schultz, P. H. (2013). Printing Space: Using 3D Printing of Digital Terrain Models in
Geosciences Education and Research. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 138-145.
Ishengoma, F. R., & Mtaho, A. B. (2014). 3D Printing: Developing Countries Perspectives.
International Journal of Computer Applications, 104(11), 30-34.
Jo, W., Jang, H. I., Harianto, R. A., So, J. H., Lee, H., Lee, H. J., & Moon, M.-W. (2016) Introduction of
3D Printing Technology in the Classroom for Visually Impaired Students. Journal of Visual Impairment
& Blindness, 110(2), 115.
Junk, S., & Matt, R. (2015). New Approach to Introduction of 3D Digital Technologies in Design
Education. Procedia CIRP, 36, 35-40.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1).
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., & Giotitsas, C. (2015). Open source 3D printing as a means of learning: An
educational experiment in two high schools in Greece. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 118-128.
Krupke, D., Wasserfall, F., Hendrich, N., & Zhang, J. (2015). Printable modular robot: an application
of rapid prototyping for flexible robot design. Industrial Robot: An International Journal, 42(2), 149-
155.
Lankes, D. (2013). Beyond the Bullet Points: Missing the Point and 3D Printing,
http://davidlankes.org/?p=2538.
Loy, J. (2014). eLearning and eMaking: 3D Printing Blurring the Digital and the Physical. Education
Sciences, 4(1), 108-121.
Mark, E., Martens, B., & Oxman, R. E. (2001). The Ideal Computer Curriculum. In H. Penttila (ed.)
Architectural Information Management, 19th ECAADE Conference Proceedings, Helsinki, Finland, pp.
168-175.
Massis, B. E. (2013). 3D printing and the library. New Library World, 114(7/8), 351-354.
McGahern, P., Bosch, F., & Poli, D. (2015). Enhancing Learning Using 3D Printing: An Alternative to
Traditional Student Project Methods. The American Biology Teacher, 77(5), 376-377.
McMenamin, P. G., Quayle, M. R., McHenry, C. R., & Adams, J. W. (2014). The production of
anatomical teaching resources using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ, 7(6),
479-486.
Moorefield-Lang, H.M. (2014). Makers in the library: case studies of 3D printers and maker spaces in
library settings. Library Hi Tech, 32(4), 583-593.
Olla, P. (2015). Opening Pandora’s 3D Printed Box. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 34(3), 74-
80.
Oxman, R., & Oxman, R. (2010). The New Structuralism: Design, Engineering and Architectural
Technologies, 14-23.
Paio, A., Eloy, S., Rato, V. M., Resende, R., & de Oliveira, M. J. (2012). Prototyping Vitruvius, New
Challenges: Digital Education, Research and Practice. Nexus Network Journal, 14(3), 409-429.
Petrovic, V., Gonzalez, J. V. H., Ferrando, O. J., Gordillo, J. D., Puchades, J. R. B., & Grinan, L. P.
(2011). Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of industrial application shown through case studies.
International Journal of Production Research, 49(4), 1061-1079.
Piller, F. T., Weller, C., & Kleer, R. (2014). Business Models with Additive Manufacturing—
Opportunities and Challenges from the Perspective of Economics and Management. In C. Brecher
(ed.), Advances in Production Technology, Springer: Berlin, 39-48.
Plemmons, A. (2014). Building a Culture of Creation. Teacher Librarian, 41(5), 12-16.
 Royal Academy of Engineering (2013). Additive manufacturing: opportunities and constraints. A
summary of a roundtable forum held on 23 May 2013 hosted by the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D printing technologies
for education: Bringing additive manufacturing to the classroom. Journal of Visual Languages &
Computing, 28, 226-237.
Stangl, A., Jernigan, B., & Yeh, T. (2015). Write, Design, and 3D Print Tactile Stories for Visually
Impaired: Critical Making in a Middle School Classroom. FabLearn 15, Stanford, CA, USA.
Thomas, D. B., Hiscox, J. D., Dixon, B. J., & Potgieter, J. (2016). 3D scanning and printing skeletal
tissues for anatomy education. J Anat, 229(3), 473-481.
Vaccarazza, M., & Papa, V. (2015). 3D printing: a valuable resource in human anatomy education.
Anat Sci Int, 90, 64-65.
Van Epps, A., Huston, D., Sherrill, J., Alvar, A., & Bowen, A. (2015). How 3D Printers Support Teaching
in Engineering, Technology and Beyond. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 42(1), 16-20.
Verner, I., & Merksamer, A. (2015). Digital Design and 3D Printing in Technology Teacher Education.
Procedia CIRP, 36, 182-186.
West, J., & Kuk, G. (2016). The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse
in 3D printing. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 102, 169-181.

View publication stats