Three-Dimensional Printed Models for Teaching and Learning Structural Engineering Concepts: Building Intuition by Physically Connecting Theory to Real Life
Publication: Journal of Civil Engineering Education
Volume 149, Issue 2
Abstract
Engineering educators naturally gravitate toward visual means for communicating concepts that would otherwise be extremely difficult to convey using words and numbers alone. With the emergence of three-dimensional (3D) printing as an accessible and cost-effective technology, it is now possible to develop customized models that enable students to watch practical demonstrations and physically interact with engineering concepts independently. Instructor-developed 3D printed models were incorporated into a second-year structural engineering course at a large university in New Zealand. Students’ learning strategies and perceptions of learning from the 3D printed models were investigated. Students were surveyed at the end of the semester. Thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses to identify the learning strategies employed when engaging with the models, perceived learning benefits, and perceived opportunities for improved learning. Students perceived the models favorably during lecture demonstrations and self-directed study at home. The models supported students’ ability to connect theory to practice, mentally visualize engineering concepts, and develop engineering judgment. Overall, students agreed the 3D printed models improved their understanding of subject matter and perceived this would improve their grade performance.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Survey responses that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The contribution of Pouya Pouladi in designing and drafting the 3D printed parts is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Akundi, A., E. Smith, and T. Tseng. 2017. “Integration of additive manufacturing technology in curricula to enhance concept-based learning.” In Proc., 124th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 17986. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Alias, M., T. R. Black, and D. E. Gray. 2002. “Effect of instruction on spatial visualization ability in civil engineering students.” Int. Educ. J. 3 (1): 1–12.
Aparicio, A. C., and A. M. Ruiz-Teran. 2007. “Tradition and innovation in teaching structural design in civil engineering.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 133 (4): 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:4(340).
Balash, C., S. Richardson, F. Guzzomi, and A. Rassau. 2020. “Engineering mechanics: Adoption of project-based learning supported by computer-aided online adaptive assessments—Overcoming fundamental issues with a fundamental subject.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 45 (6): 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2019.1664413.
Barner, M. S., S. A. Brown, and D. Linton. 2021. “Structural engineering heuristics in an engineering workplace and academic environments.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147 (2): 04020014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000029.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Buckley, J., N. Seery, and D. Canty. 2019. “Spatial cognition in engineering education: Developing a spatial ability framework to support the translation of theory into practice.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 44 (1–2): 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1327944.
Case, J. M., and G. Light. 2011. “Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research.” J. Eng. Educ. 100 (1): 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00008.x.
Celorrio-Barragué, L., S. Calvo-Simón, M. Gaspar, M. Vidal-Cortés, and P. Martín-Ramos. 2019. “3D printed models-based lab activities to enhance learning-teaching processes in Structural Engineering courses.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 80–86. Leon, Spain: Association for Computing Machinery.
Cone, C., V. Viswesh, V. Gupta, and E. Unni. 2018. “Motivators, barriers, and strategies to improve response rate to student evaluation of teaching.” Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 10 (12): 1543–1549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.08.020.
Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dart, S. 2022. “Evaluating the impact of worked example videos for blended learning in a large-enrollment business statistics course.” Stat. Educ. Res. J. 21 (1): 8–18. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v21i1.93.
Dart, S., S. Cunningham-Nelson, and L. Dawes. 2020a. “Understanding student perceptions of worked example videos through the technology acceptance model.” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 28 (5): 1278–1290. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22301.
Dart, S., E. Pickering, and L. Dawes. 2020b. “Worked example videos for blended learning in undergraduate engineering.” Adv. Eng. Educ. 8 (2): 1–22.
Davishahl, E., L. Singleton, T. Haskell, and L. G. O’Bannon. 2021. “Hands on STEM learning at home with 3D-printed manipulatives.” In Proc., 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Virtual Annual Conf. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Felder, R. M., D. R. Woods, J. E. Stice, and A. Rugarcia. 2000. “The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work.” Chem. Eng. Educ. 34 (1): 26–39.
Ford, S., and T. Minshall. 2019. “Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education.” Addit. Manuf. 25 (2019): 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.
Foutz, T. L. 2019. “Using argumentation as a learning strategy to improve student performance in engineering statics.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 44 (3): 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1488818.
Freeman, S., S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. 2014. “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (23): 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Gamage, K. A., D. I. Wijesuriya, S. Y. Ekanayake, A. E. Rennie, C. G. Lambert, and N. Gunawardhana. 2020. “Online delivery of teaching and laboratory practices: Continuity of university programmes during COVID-19 pandemic.” Educ. Sci. 10 (10): 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100291.
Guest, G., K. M. MacQueen, and E. E. Namey. 2012. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ha, O., and N. Fang. 2017. “Interactive virtual and physical manipulatives for improving students’ spatial skills.” J. Educ. Comput. Res. 55 (8): 1088–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117697730.
Hattie, J. A., and G. M. Donoghue. 2016. “Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model.” NPJ Sci. Learn. 1 (1): 16013. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13.
Horowitz, S. S., and P. H. Schultz. 2014. “Printing space: Using 3D printing of digital terrain models in geosciences education and research.” J. Geosci. Educ. 62 (1): 138–145. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-031.1.
Ji, T., A. Bell, and Y. Wu. 2021. “The philosophical basis of seeing and touching structural concepts.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 46 (6): 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1936459.
Kell, H. J., and D. Lubinski. 2013. “Spatial ability: A neglected talent in educational and occupational settings.” Roeper Rev. 35 (4): 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.829896.
Kelly, A., R. Kimbell, V. Patterson, J. Saxton, and K. Stables. 1987. Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO.
MacRobert, C. J. 2018. “Introducing engineering judgment through active learning.” J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 144 (4): 05018009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000382.
Martin, R. L., N. S. Bowden, and C. Merrill. 2014. “3D printing in technology and engineering education.” Technol. Eng. Teach. 73 (8): 30–35.
Mejia, J. A., W. Goodridge, B. Call, and S. Wood. 2016. “Manipulatives in engineering statics: Supplementing analytical techniques with physical models.” In Proc., 123rd American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf. and Exposition. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Nulty, D. D. 2008. “The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done?” Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 33 (3): 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231.
Olympiou, G., and Z. C. Zacharia. 2012. “Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation.” Sci. Educ. 96 (1): 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463.
Prusty, G. B., et al. 2011. “Adaptive tutorials to target threshold concepts in mechanics-a community of practice approach.” In Proc., 22nd Australasian Association for Engineering Education Annual Conf., 305–310. Fremantle, WA, Australia: Australasian Association for Engineering Education.
Steif, P. S. 2004. “An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics.” In Proc., 34th Frontiers in Education Annual Conf., Savannah, GA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Steif, P. S., and A. Dollar. 2005. “Reinventing the teaching of statics.” Int. J. Eng. Educ. 21 (4): 723–731.
Stone-Sundberg, J., W. Kaminsky, T. Snyder, and P. Moeck. 2015. “3D printed models of small and large molecules, structures and morphologies of crystals, as well as their anisotropic physical properties.” Cryst. Res. Technol. 50 (6): 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/crat.201400469.
Streveler, R. A., T. A. Litzinger, R. L. Miller, and P. S. Steif. 2008. “Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and future research directions.” J. Eng. Educ. 97 (3): 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00979.x.
Trafimow, D. 2014. “Considering quantitative and qualitative issues together.” Qual. Res. Psychol. 11 (1): 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2012.743202.
Veurink, N. L., and S. A. Sorby. 2019. “Longitudinal study of the impact of requiring training for students with initially weak spatial skills.” Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 44 (1–2): 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1390547.
Virgin, L. 2017. “Enhancing the teaching of linear structural analysis using additive manufacturing.” Eng. Struct. 150 (Jan): 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.054.
Virgin, L. 2021. “A shear center demonstration model using 3D-printing.” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 50 (3): 739–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190211057429.
Wai, J., D. Lubinski, and C. P. Benbow. 2009. “Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance.” J. Educ. Psychol. 101 (4): 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127.
Walther, J., N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam. 2013. “Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study.” J. Eng. Educ. 102 (4): 626–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20029.
Zumrawi, A. A., S. P. Bates, and M. Schroeder. 2014. “What response rates are needed to make reliable inferences from student evaluations of teaching?” Educ. Res. Eval. 20 (7–8): 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.997915.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Civil Engineering Education
Volume 149 • Issue 2 • April 2023
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 4, 2021
Accepted: Jul 12, 2022
Published online: Nov 17, 2022
Published in print: Apr 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Apr 17, 2023
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
- Anita Pawlak-Jakubowska, Ewa Terczyńska, Evaluation of STEM students' spatial abilities based on a novel net cube imagination test, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-023-44371-5, 13, 1, (2023).