What is Design-based Thinking?

Over the years, scholars have provided various definitions to ‘design-based thinking’. Razzouk & Shute (2012) define it as an “analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback and redesign” (pp. 330). Combining real-world factors in the design process, to produce a product or solution for a specific intent or purpose can in conjunction, define design-based thinking (Doppelt, 2009; Cassim, 2013). Design Thinking for Educators suggests a five phase approach to developing a meaningful design process. 

What is 3D Printing? (Examples of 3D printing software)

3D printing converts digital designs into 3D objects. Computer-Aided Design software (CAD) is used to create a blueprint of a design. It is then sent to the printer, and ‘printed’ using tiny multi-layered material, sticking together to create a real-world object (Horejsi, 2014).

Students can explore design-based thinking through creating their own personal 3D printing projects. CAD software such as Tinkercad is easy to navigate for students to think, create and produce 3D products. It provides endless possibilities to all students, and through minor instruction, for stages 1 and above.

• 

• 

• 

 How can it foster creativity in the classroom?

The versatility of 3D printing allows for numerous opportunities, open-ended tasks and collaboration across all KLA’s for students (Novak, 2019). STEM activities incorporating this form of technology have produced positive results in students’ technological and design abilities, motivation and engagement (Nemorin & Selwyn, 2017). Student’s can work together or individually to visualise 3D forms, only limited to their imagination.

An endless selection of classroom lessons can be formed around design-based thinking in 3D printing. A few of these include:

• Design a class mascot
• Design a character from your creative writing piece
• Design a piece of playground equipment used for K-2
• Design your country flag
• Create a model of an extinct animal

Pedagogical Implications of 3D Printing

With the increasing desire for incorporating emerging technology within school-based learning, 3D printing can be seen as a chance to revolutionise technology education (Martin, Bowden & Merrill, 2014). However, the required amount of training, skills and time teachers need to produce a successful, learning based lesson in 3D printing is strenuous (Novak, 2019). Novak (2019) discusses the partnership of teachers from schools and universities, in combining resources in collaborative design training days, can increase their likelihood of implementing 3D design-based learning in their classrooms as it removes stigma and uncertainties. Another limitation is the lack of time available in the curriculum to employ sufficient opportunity for students to learn CAD skills, such as Tinkercad.

References

Cassim, F. (2013). Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 190-202.

Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55-65. doi: 10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y

Horejsi, M. (2014). Science 2.0: Teaching STEM with a 3D Printer. The Science Teacher, 8(4), 10-10.

Martin, R. L., Bowden, N. S., & Merrill, C. (2014). 3D Printing in technology and engineering education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(8), 30-35.

Nemorin, S., & Selwyn, N. (2017). Making the best of it? Exploring the realities of 3D printing in school. Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 578–595. doi:10.1080/02671522.2016.1225802

Novak, J. I. (2019). Re-Educating the Educators: Collaborative 3D Printing Education. In I. Santos, N. Ali, & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives on 3D Printing in Education (pp. 28-49). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7018-9.ch002

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457429