Complex Solutions for Complex Problems? Exploring the Role of Design Task Choice on Learning, Design for Additive Manufacturing Use, and Creativity

2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Problem Statement ◽  
Design Task ◽  
Complex Solutions ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Am Processes

Abstract The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in many industries has led to the need for AM education and training, particularly on design for AM (DfAM). To meet this growing need, several academic institutions have implemented educational interventions, especially project- and problem-based, for AM education; however, limited research has explored how the choice of the problem statement influences the design outcomes of a task-based AM/DfAM intervention. This research explores this gap in the literature through an experimental study with 175 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the study compared the effects of restrictive and dual (restrictive and opportunistic) DfAM education, when introduced through design tasks that differed in the explicit use of design objectives and functional and manufacturing constraints in defining them. The effects of the intervention were measured through (1) changes in participant DfAM self-efficacy, (2) participants' self-reported emphasis on DfAM, and (3) the creativity of participants' design outcomes. The results show that the choice of the design task has a significant effect on the participants' self-efficacy with, and their self-reported emphasis on, certain DfAM concepts. The results also show that the design task containing explicit constraints and objectives results in participants generating ideas with greater uniqueness compared with the design task with fewer explicit constraints and objectives. These findings highlight the importance of the chosen problem statement on the outcomes of a DfAM educational intervention, and future work is also discussed.

Complex Solutions for Complex Problems?: Exploring the Effects of Task Complexity on Student Use of Design for Additive Manufacturing and Creativity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Problem Statement ◽  
Design Task ◽  
Complex Design ◽  
Complex Solutions ◽  
Future Work

Abstract The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in many industries has led to the need for AM education and training, particularly on design for AM (DfAM). To meet this growing need, several academic institutions have implemented educational interventions, especially project- and problem-based, for AM education; however, limited research has explored how the choice of the problem statement influences the design outcomes of a task-based AM/DfAM intervention. This research explores this gap in the literature through an experimental study with 222 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the study compared the effects of restrictive and dual (restrictive and opportunistic) DfAM education, when introduced through either a simple or complex design task. The effects of the intervention were measured through (1) changes in student DfAM self-efficacy, (2) student self-reported emphasis on DfAM, and (3) the creativity of student AM designs. The results show that the complexity of the design task has a significant effect on the participants’ self-efficacy with, and self-reported emphasis on, certain DfAM concepts. The results also show that the complex design task results in participants generating ideas with greater median uniqueness compared to the simple design task. These findings highlight the importance of the chosen problem statement on the outcomes of a DfAM educational intervention, and future work is also discussed.

The Earlier the Better? Investigating the Importance of Timing on Effectiveness of Design for Additive Manufacturing Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Layer By Layer ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Layer Deposition ◽  
Subtractive Manufacturing ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Design Ideas ◽  
Am Processes

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a novel process that enables the manufacturing of complex geometries through layer-by-layer deposition of material. AM processes provide a stark contrast to traditional, subtractive manufacturing processes, which has resulted in the emergence of design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) to capitalize on AM’s capabilities. In order to support the increasing use of AM in engineering, it is important to shift from the traditional design for manufacturing and assembly mindset, towards integrating DfAM. To facilitate this, DfAM must be included in the engineering design curriculum in a manner that has the highest impact. While previous research has systematically organized DfAM concepts into process capability-based (opportunistic) and limitation-based (restrictive) considerations, limited research has been conducted on the impact of teaching DfAM on the student’s design process. This study investigates this interaction by comparing two DfAM educational interventions conducted at different points in the academic semester. The two versions are compared by evaluating the students’ perceived utility, change in self-efficacy, and the use of DfAM concepts in design. The results show that introducing DfAM early in the semester when students have little previous experience in AM resulted in the largest gains in students perceiving utility in learning about DfAM concepts and DfAM self-efficacy gains. Further, we see that this increase relates to greater application of opportunistic DfAM concepts in student design ideas in a DfAM challenge. However, no difference was seen in the application of restrictive DfAM concepts between the two interventions. These results can be used to guide the design and implementation of DfAM education.

Break It Down: Comparing the Effects of Lecture- and Module-Style Design for Additive Manufacturing Educational Interventions on Students’ Learning and Creativity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Educational Intervention ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Evaluation Metrics ◽  
Single Session ◽  
Information Retention ◽  
Design Creativity ◽  
Am Processes ◽  
Design For Am

Abstract Given the growing presence of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in engineering design and manufacturing, there has emerged an increased interest in introducing AM and design for AM (DfAM) educational interventions in engineering education. Several researchers have proposed AM and DfAM educational interventions; however, some argue that these efforts might not be sufficient to develop higher-level skills among engineers (e.g., identifying design opportunities that leverage AM capabilities). Prior work has shown that longer, distributed educational interventions are more effective in encouraging learning and information retention; however, these interventions could also be time-consuming and expensive to implement. Therefore, there is a need to test the effectiveness of longer, distributed DfAM educational interventions compared to shorter, lecture-style interventions. Our aim in this research is to explore this research gap through an experimental study. Specifically, we compared two variations of a DfAM educational intervention: (1) a module-style intervention spread over two sessions with the introduction of DfAM evaluation metrics, and (2) a lecture-style intervention completed in a single session with no evaluation metrics introduced. From our results, we see that students who received the module-style intervention reported a greater increase in their DfAM self-efficacy. Additionally, students who received the module-style intervention reported having given a greater emphasis on part consolidation and feature size. Finally, we observe that the structure of the educational intervention did not influence the creativity of ideas generated by the participants. These findings highlight the utility of module-style DfAM educational interventions towards increasing DfAM self-efficacy, but not necessarily design creativity. Moreover, these findings highlight the need to formulate educational interventions that are effective and efficient.

Fresh in My Mind! Investigating the Effects of the Order of Presenting Opportunistic and Restrictive Design for Additive Manufacturing Content on Creativity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Manufacturing Processes ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Undergraduate Engineering ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing ◽  
Order Of Presentation ◽  
Am Processes ◽  
Design For Am

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with creative freedoms beyond the capabilities of traditional manufacturing processes. However, to successfully leverage AM, designers must balance their creativity against the limitations inherent in these processes to ensure the feasibility of their designs. This feasible adoption of AM can be achieved if designers learn about and apply opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) techniques at appropriate stages of the design process. Researchers have demonstrated the effect of the order of presentation of information on the learning and retrieval of said information; however, there is a need to explore this effect within DfAM education. In this paper, we explore this gap through an experimental study involving 195 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, we compare two variations in DfAM education: (1) opportunistic DfAM followed by restrictive DfAM, and (2) restrictive DfAM followed by opportunistic DfAM, against only opportunistic DFAM and only restrictive DfAM training. These variations are compared through (1) differences in participants’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) their self-reported DfAM use, and (3) the creativity of their design outcomes. From the results, we see that only students trained in opportunistic DfAM, with or without restrictive DfAM, present a significant increase in their opportunistic DfAM self-efficacy. However, all students trained in DfAM — opportunistic, restrictive, or both — demonstrated an increase in their restrictive DfAM self-efficacy. Further, we see that teaching restrictive DfAM first followed by opportunistic DfAM results in the generation of ideas with greater creativity — a novel research finding. These results highlight the need for educators to account for the effects of the order of presenting content to students, especially when educating students about DfAM.

Toward Metamodels for Composable and Reusable Additive Manufacturing Process Models

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Witherell ◽  
Shaw Feng ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
David B. Saint John ◽  
Pan Michaleris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Metal Powder ◽  
Manufacturing Process ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Powder Bed Fusion ◽  
Powder Bed ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Am Processes

In this paper, we advocate for a more harmonized approach to model development for additive manufacturing (AM) processes, through classification and metamodeling that will support AM process model composability, reusability, and integration. We review several types of AM process models and use the direct metal powder bed fusion AM process to provide illustrative examples of the proposed classification and metamodel approach. We describe how a coordinated approach can be used to extend modeling capabilities by promoting model composability. As part of future work, a framework is envisioned to realize a more coherent strategy for model development and deployment.

Not Good Enough? Exploring Relationships Between Students’ Empathy, Their Attitudes Towards Sustainability, and the Self-Perceived Sustainability of Their Solutions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Mohammed Alsager Alzayed ◽  
Elizabeth Starkey
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Sustainable Design ◽  
The Self ◽  
Empathy Development ◽  
Concept Evaluation ◽  
Trait Empathy ◽  
Evaluation Stage ◽  
Future Work

Abstract Empathy plays an important role in designers’ ability to relate to problems faced by others. Several researchers have studied empathy development in engineering design education; however, a majority of this work has focused on teaching designers to empathize with primary users. Little attention in empathy development research is given to empathizing with those affected in a secondary and tertiary capacity. Moreover, little research has investigated the role of students’ empathy in influencing their emphasis on sustainability, especially in the concept evaluation stage. Our aim in this paper is to explore this research gap through an experimental study with engineering students. Specifically, we introduced first-year engineering students at a large public university in the northeastern United States to a short workshop on sustainable design. We compared changes in their trait empathy and attitudes towards sustainability from before to after participating in the workshop. We also compared the relationship between students’ trait empathy, attitudes towards sustainability, and the self-perceived sustainability of their solutions in a design task. From our results, we see that students reported an increase in their beliefs and intentions towards sustainability and a decrease in their personal distress from before to after participating in the workshop. Furthermore, students’ trait empathy correlated negatively with the self-perceived sustainability of their solutions. These findings highlight the need for future work studying the role of empathy in encouraging a sustainable design mindset among designers.

But Will It Build? Assessing Student Engineering Designers’ Use of Design for Additive Manufacturing Considerations in Design Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Contact Area ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Support Material ◽  
Design Task ◽  
Process Characteristics ◽  
Build Time ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Part Complexity

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) enables engineers to improve the functionality and performance of their designs by adding complexity at little to no additional cost. However, AM processes also exhibit certain unique limitations, such as the presence of support material. These limitations must be accounted for to ensure that designs can be manufactured feasibly and cost-effectively. Given these unique process characteristics, it is important for an AM-trained workforce to be able to incorporate both opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) considerations into the design process. While AM/DfAM educational interventions have been discussed in the literature, few studies have objectively assessed the integration of DfAM in student engineering designers’ design outcomes. Furthermore, limited research has explored how the use of DfAM affects the students’ AM designs’ achievement of design task objectives. This research explores this gap in literature through an experimental study with 301 undergraduate students. Specifically, participants were exposed to either restrictive DfAM or dual DfAM (both opportunistic and restrictive) and then asked to participate in a design challenge. The participants’ final designs were evaluated for (1) build time and build material (2) the use of the various DfAM concepts, and (3) the features used to manifest these DfAM concepts. The results show that the use of certain DfAM considerations, such as part complexity, number of parts, support material mass, and build plate contact area (corresponding to warping tendency), correlated with the build material and build time of the AM designs—minimizing both of which were objectives of the design task. The results also show that introducing participants to opportunistic DfAM leads to the generation of designs with higher part complexity and lower build plate contact area but a greater presence of inaccessible support material.

But Will it Print?: Assessing Student Use of Design for Additive Manufacturing and Exploring its Effect on Design Performance and Manufacturability

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Support Material ◽  
Design Performance ◽  
Process Characteristics ◽  
Build Time ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Am Processes ◽  
Design For Am

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) enables engineers to improve the functionality and performance of their designs by adding complexity at little to no additional cost. However, AM processes also exhibit certain unique limitations, such as the presence of support material, which must be accounted for to ensure that designs can be manufactured feasibly and cost-effectively. Given these unique process characteristics, it is important for an AM-trained workforce to be able to incorporate both opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) considerations into the design process. While AM/DfAM educational interventions have been discussed in the literature, limited research has investigated the effect of these interventions on students’ use of DfAM. Furthermore, limited research has explored how DfAM use affects the performance of students’ AM designs. This research explores this gap through an experimental study with 123 undergraduate students. Specifically, participants were exposed to either restrictive DfAM or dual DfAM (both opportunistic and restrictive) and then asked to participate in an AM design challenge. The students’ final designs were evaluated for (1) performance with respect the design objectives and constraints, and (2) the use of the various aspects of DfAM. The results showed that the use of certain DfAM considerations, such as minimum feature size and support material mass, successfully predicted the performance of the AM designs. Further, while the variations in DfAM education did not influence the performance of the AM designs, it did have an effect on the students’ use of certain DfAM concepts in their final designs. These results highlight the influence of DfAM education in bringing about an increase in students’ use of DfAM. Moreover, the results demonstrate the potential influence of DfAM in reducing build time and build material of the students’ AM designs, thus improving design performance and manufacturability.

scholarly journals Entrepreneurial Intention of Engineering Students: The Role of Social Norms and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (16) ◽  
pp. 4314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grigorios Asimakopoulos ◽  
Virginia Hernández ◽  
Javier Peña Miguel
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Entrepreneurial Intention ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Entrepreneurial Education ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This paper examines the impact of entrepreneurial education on intention to undertake entrepreneurial activity in the future. The study is based on a sample of 208 engineering students. Specifically, we explore the contingent effect of social norms on the relationship between entrepreneurial education and intention to undertake entrepreneurial activity, as well as the role of social norms on the association between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. We utilize a comprehensive questionnaire distributed among engineering students. Our findings indicate that entrepreneurial education is positively associated with the intention to undertake entrepreneurial activity, in addition to demonstrating a positive moderation effect role of social norms on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. The study provides empirical support to devise new educational initiatives that can further support students and young entrepreneurs in their current or future entrepreneurial projects

Mastering Manufacturing: Exploring the Influence of Engineering Designers’ Prior Experience When Using Design for Additive Manufacturing

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Prior Experience ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Design For Manufacturing ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Manufacturing Techniques ◽  
Aided Design ◽  
Am Processes

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with unique capabilities while imposing several process limitations. Designers must leverage the capabilities of AM — through opportunistic design for AM (DfAM) — and accommodate AM limitations — through restrictive DfAM — to successfully employ AM in engineering design. These opportunistic and restrictive DfAM techniques starkly contrast the traditional, limitation-based design for manufacturing techniques — the current standard for design for manufacturing (DfM). Therefore, designers must transition from a restrictive DfM mindset towards a ‘dual’ design mindset — using opportunistic and restrictive DfAM concepts. Designers’ prior experience, especially with a partial set of DfM and DfAM techniques could inhibit their ability to transition towards a dual DfAM approach. On the other hand, experienced designers’ auxiliary skills (e.g., with computer-aided design) could help them successfully use DfAM in their solutions. Researchers have investigated the influence of prior experience on designers’ use of DfAM tools in design; however, a majority of this work focuses on early-stage ideation. Little research has studied the influence of prior experience on designers’ DfAM use in the later design stages, especially in formal DfAM educational interventions, and we aim to explore this research gap. From our results, we see that experienced designers report higher baseline self-efficacy with restrictive DfAM but not with opportunistic DfAM. We also see that experienced designers demonstrate a greater use of certain DfAM concepts (e.g., part and assembly complexity) in their designs. These findings suggest that introducing designers to opportunistic DfAM early could help develop a dual design mindset; however, having more engineering experience might be necessary for them to implement this knowledge into their designs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document