INTRODUCING NOVEL LEARNING OUTCOMES AND PROCESS SELECTION MODEL FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING EDUCATION IN ENGINEERING

Ari Pikkarainen, Heidi Piili, Antti Salminen

Abstract


Additive manufacturing (AM) is at the verge of being recognised as one of the main manufacturing methods among the traditional ones. The largest obstacle in using AM in the companies is the lack of knowledge about the possibilities of the technology. One sub-problem caused by this is the lack of qualified machine operators in companies due to the insufficient AM education. This indicates the need for strengthen the current AM education especially in the B.Sc. and M.Sc. levels in engineering education by emphasising the importance of AM in curriculum development. This study presents novel learning outcomes based on the needs of manufacturing industry and companies in Finland. A questionnaire was conducted to work-life representatives in order to map the requirements for AM education in the mechanical engineering degree of the Lapland University of Applied Sciences in Finland. The responds were collected as competences representing different areas of AM knowledge and the learning outcomes were derived from the responds. AM education must also provide a model for selecting the most suitable AM technology in order for students to learn the technological aspects. This study also presents a process selection model which can be used in AM education. The model allows the student to compare different AM technologies from different perspectives such as material, functionality and visual appearance point-of-view.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


additive manufacturing, 3D printing, curriculum, learning outcome, engineering

Full Text:

PDF

References


D Hubs, 2019. Knowledge Base. Selecting the right 3D printing process. https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/selecting-right-3d-printing-process/. Accessed 8 August 2020.

Arapi P, Moumoutzis N, Mylonakis M, Theodorakis G and Christodoulakis S, 2007. A Pedagogy-driven personalization framework to support automatic construction of adaptive learning experiences. Conference: Advances in Web based learning – ICWL 2007: 55-65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78139-4_6.

Auvinen P, Heikkilä J, Ilola H, Kallioinen, O, Luopajärvi, T, Katariina R, Roslöf, J, 2010. Recommendation for the application of National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and the common general competences of qualifications in Universities of Applied Sciences. The Rectors´conference of Finnish universities of Applied Sciences ARENE.

Bloom B, Engelhart M, Furst E, Hill W, Krathwohl D, 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives – The classification of Educational Goals, Michigan, USA.

Chen Y, Qian C, Shen R, Wu D, Bian L, Qu 3D printing technology improves medical interns´ understanding of anatomy of gastrocolic trunk H, Fan X, Liu Z, Li Y, Xia J, 2020.. Journal of Surgical Education 77(5): 1279 – 1284. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.02.031.

Ford S and Minshall T, 2019. Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive manufacturing 25: 131-150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.

Finnish National Agency for Education. National framework for qualifications and other competence modules in Finland. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/qualifications-frameworks. Accessed 12 August 2020.

Gibson I, Rosen D, Stucker B and Khorasani, M. 2021. Additive manufacturing technologies, Springer Nature Switzerland.

Honkala A, Isola M, Jutila S, Savilampi J, Rahkonen A, Wennström M, 2009. How to implement learning outcomes to your curriculum. W5W2- project guide, University of Oulu, Finland.

Jiang Q, Feng X-T, Yanhua G, Song L, Ran S, Cui J, 2016. Reverse modelling of natural rock joints using 3D scanning and 3D printing. Computers and Geotechnics 73: 210 – 220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.11.020.

Karjalainen A, Alha K, Jaakkola E, Lapinlampi T, 2007. Academical curriculum work, University of Oulu, Finland.

Karpen S and Welch A, 2016. Assessing the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of pharmacy faculty’s Bloom’s Taxonomy classifications. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8:885-888. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.003.

Lapland University of Applied Sciences, 2015. Guidelines for designing curriculum 2017, Rovaniemi, Finland.

Meda L and Swart A.J., 2017. Analysing learning outcomes in an Electrical engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom´s Taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering education 43(3): 1 – 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1378169.

Paulic M, Irgolic T, Balic J, Cus F, Cupar A, Brajlih T, Drstvensek I, 2014. Reverse Engineering of Parts with Optical Scanning and Additive Manufacturing. Procedia Engineering 69: 795-803. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.03.056.

Pikkarainen A, Piili H, 2020. Implementing 3D printing education through technical pedagogy and curriculum development. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy 10(6): 95-119. doi: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v10i6.14859.

PLM Group, 2019. The current state of 3D printing in Nordics and Baltics 2019

SFS-EN ISO / ASTM 52900, 2017. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General Principles – Terminology.

Stanny C.J, 2016. Reevaluating Bloom´s taxonomy: What measurable verbs can and cannot say about student learning. Education Sciences 6(37). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6040037.

Statista, 2020. Most used 3D printing technologies worldwide. https://www.statista.com/statistics/560304/worldwide-survey-3d-printing-top-technologies/. Accessed: 13 September 2020.

Steinmo M and Rasmussen E, 2018. The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Research Policy 47(10). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.004.

Ullah S, Tashi T, Kubo A, Harib K, 2020. Tutorials for integrating 3D printing in engineering curricula. Education sciences 10(8):1 – 18. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080194.

Wang Y, Ding H, Ji Z, Li Z, Wang K 2020. Development of a product reverse design teaching and learning model in engineering design education. ICFET 2020: Proceedings of the 2020 The 6th International Conference on Frontiers of Educational Technologies:47 – 50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3404709.3404750.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i1.3511

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Ari Pikkarainen, Heidi Piili, Antti Salminen

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).