DOCSLIB.ORG

Purposes, Limitations, and Applications of 3D Printing in Minnesota Public Schools Amy Fettig St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Purposes, Limitations, and Applications of 3D Printing in Minnesota Public Schools Amy Fettig St St. Cloud State University theRepository at St. Cloud State Culminating Projects in Information Media Department of Information Media 5-2017 Purposes, Limitations, and Applications of 3D Printing in Minnesota Public Schools Amy Fettig St. Cloud State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/im_etds Recommended Citation Fettig, Amy, "Purposes, Limitations, and Applications of 3D Printing in Minnesota Public Schools" (2017). Culminating Projects in Information Media. 12. https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/im_etds/12 This Starred Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Information Media at theRepository at St. Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in Information Media by an authorized administrator of theRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Purposes, Limitations, and Applications of 3D Printing in Minnesota Public Schools by Amy Fettig A Starred Paper Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of St. Cloud State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Information Media March, 2016 Starred Paper Committee: Dr. Marcia Thompson, Chairperson Dr. Merton Thompson Dr. Kenneth Miller 1 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................4 Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................5 Context and Background................................................................................5 Problem Statement .........................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................8 Definitions of Terms .....................................................................................9 Conclusion .....................................................................................................11 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................................12 Introduction ....................................................................................................12 Review Methodology .....................................................................................12 Open Source ...................................................................................................13 Educational Technology ................................................................................15 Maker Movement ...........................................................................................17 Issues and Challenges ....................................................................................19 Policy and Application ...................................................................................20 Gaps in Research............................................................................................21 Conclusion .....................................................................................................21 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................22 Introduction ....................................................................................................22 Objectives ......................................................................................................22 2 Chapter Page Survey Methodology ......................................................................................23 Timeline .........................................................................................................24 Significance....................................................................................................24 Summary ........................................................................................................24 4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................26 Introduction ....................................................................................................26 Response Rate ................................................................................................26 Demographics ................................................................................................26 Access and Ownership ...................................................................................27 Multidisciplinary Benefits .............................................................................28 Selection and Use ...........................................................................................29 Conclusion .....................................................................................................30 5. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................31 Introduction ....................................................................................................31 Discussion of Results .....................................................................................32 Limitations .....................................................................................................33 Implications for Educators and Administrators .............................................34 Recommendations for Further Research ........................................................34 Sharing Research Results ...............................................................................35 Personal Reflection ........................................................................................35 Conclusion .....................................................................................................36 3 References ........................................................................................................................37 Appendix A. 3D Design and Printing Applications ..............................................................43 Appendix B. Survey Questions ............................................................................................44 Appendix C. Survey Cover Letter .......................................................................................46 Appendix D. Institutional Review Board Approval ............................................................47 Appendix E. Survey Results ..............................................................................................48 4 List of Figures Figure Page 1.1. Google Search Trend Lines ..........................................................................................5 4.1. Student Grade Levels .....................................................................................................27 4.2. Student Population ........................................................................................................27 4.3. 3D Printer Access .........................................................................................................28 4.4. 3D Printing Barriers ......................................................................................................28 4.5. Discipline Application Rankings ..................................................................................29 4.6. 3D Printer Types ...........................................................................................................29 4.7. 3D Printing Design & Software ....................................................................................30 4.8. 3D Printing Curriculum ................................................................................................30 5 Chapter One: Introduction Introduction It was not long ago that the concept of three-dimensional (3D) printing, additive manufacturing by industrial terminology, was reserved for the rapid prototyping field of engineering and production. Interest in 3D printing, however, has grown dramatically over the past few years, (See Figure 1.1) a change set in motion in part through the expiration of patents (Schoffer, 2016). The process of 3D printing has three basic components: computer assisted (i.e. digital) design, machine equipment, and an added material. This chapter contains background to the world of 3D printing, how it can be utilized in education, and the objective and significance of wide-ranging research into selection practices. Figure 1.1: Google Search Trend Lines Context and Background At the inception of personal computers, it was unfathomable that every home would one day own a personal computer let alone have 1:1 initiatives for iPads or Chromebooks in many K- 12 schools. Today, the 3D printing industry is a burgeoning technology field that has similarly scaled down from massive, expensive machines to desktop models available to many consumers. 6 There are a multitude of do-it-yourself kits and open source software available competing with commercialized all-in-one products. Choices abound as new ways of 3D printing are developed and more and more product designers create innovative projects and materials. 3D printing processes include Fused Deposition Modeling™/a.k.a. Fused Filament Fabrication (FDM/FFF), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Stereolithography (SLA™), Selective Deposition Lamination (SDL) and Polyjet printing. Currently, the most affordable filament/extrusion based machines
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Technologically Mediated Artisanal Production Tamara Kneese University of San Francisco, [email protected]
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Media Studies College of Arts and Sciences 10-8-2014 Technologically Mediated Artisanal Production Tamara Kneese University of San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/ms Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, and the Work, Economy and Organizations Commons Recommended Citation Kneese, Tamara, "Technologically Mediated Artisanal Production" (2014). Media Studies. 17. https://repository.usfca.edu/ms/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts and Sciences at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Media Studies by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Technologically Mediated Artisanal Production by Tamara Kneese, Alex Rosenblat, and danah boyd Data & Society Working Paper, October 8, 2014 Prepared for: Future of Work Project supported by Open Society Foundations Brief Description As traditional mass manufacturing in the tech, textile, and auto industries has largely left the United States and relocated to the Global South, post-industrial forms of work have taken the place of this kind of labor. And yet, the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and the dire straits of formerly great Rust Belt cities like Detroit have led to a kind of nostalgia for both industrial and artisanal modes of production. Manufacturing still exists in the United States, but there is movement towards a new kind of labor process and product.
    [Show full text]
  • Maker Culture and Minecraft: Implications for the Future of Learning
    Educational Media International ISSN: 0952-3987 (Print) 1469-5790 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/remi20 Maker culture and Minecraft: implications for the future of learning Dodie J. Niemeyer & Hannah R. Gerber To cite this article: Dodie J. Niemeyer & Hannah R. Gerber (2015) Maker culture and Minecraft: implications for the future of learning, Educational Media International, 52:3, 216-226, DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103 Published online: 30 Oct 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1651 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 21 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=remi20 Educational Media International, 2015 Vol. 52, No. 3, 216–226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103 Maker culture and Minecraft: implications for the future of learning Dodie J. Niemeyer* and Hannah R. Gerber Department of Language, Literacy and Special Populations, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA Collaborative learning environments found with gaming communities can provide excellent structures to study the way that learners act within informal learning environments. For example, many of these gaming communities encour- age gamers to create videogames and virtual world walkthroughs and commen- taries. Walkthroughs and commentaries provide gamers information that helps them in game play. We refer to this process of walkthrough creation as digital maker culture. This study explored the phenomena of digital maker culture through a multiple case study design by examining five Minecraft walkthrough creators who created walkthrough repositories on YouTube.
    [Show full text]
  • The Makings of China's Hackerspace Community
    Forum communiTy + cuLTure Community + Culture features practitioner perspectives on designing technologies for and with communities. We highlight compelling projects and provocative points of view that speak to both community technology practice and the interaction design field as a whole. Christopher A. Le Dantec Created in China: The Makings of China’s Hackerspace Community Silvia Lindtner University of California, Irvine | [email protected] David Li XinCheJian | [email protected] Hackerspaces are shared studios In September 2010, China’s first that bring together people commit- hackerspace opened its doors ted to the free and open sharing of in Shanghai under the name software and hardware, as well as XinCheJian 新车间 (literal transla- ideas and knowledge. As of April tion: new workshop, or new factory). 2012, there are more than 500 active Only a year after the founding of hackerspaces in existence world- XinCheJian, the Shanghai govern- wide, making them a global phe- ment announced a call for proposals nomenon [1]. A typical studio will be to build 100 “innovation houses” equipped with tools that allow for (chuangxin wu 创新屋) to be sup- experimenting with the physical/ ported by government funding. digital boundary—laser cutters, 3-D Although the official document [4] printers, microcontroller kits, and described this initiative as part of so forth. Many hackerspaces also a larger effort to build a citywide host educational workshops where platform for supporting popular sci- these tools are used to teach others ence work and innovation, national about manipulating the physical and international media inter- environment through software, or preted this move as an endorse- vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • Maker Culture in CMU SCS Part II: 3D Printing Dave Touretzky November, 2013
    Maker Culture in CMU SCS Part II: 3D Printing Dave Touretzky November, 2013 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Maker 1 3D Printing vs. Laser Cutter X Slower X Less precise X More expensive X Limited materials X Support material may be required Complex 3D structures! 2 Low Cost 3D Printers • RepRap: 2005 onward – Adrian Bowyer, University of Bath (UK) – Goal: open source 3D printer that can replicate itself – 4 generations: Darwin, Mendel, Prusa Mendel, Huxley – Spawned many start-ups • Makerbot – Evolved from RepRap; initially was open source – Cupcake, Thing-o-Matic, Makerbot2, Replicator • Solidoodle ($500) • Cube • Many, many more… 3 Cube Components “Cube tube” Extruder Material cartridge Print pad USB port for flash drive Touch panel display and power button 4 2nd Generation Cube • Prints ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) or PLA (polylactic acid). • Faster than original cube. • Better precision (200 microns vs. 250 for original model.) • No heated bed: saves time. • Can print “hollow” or “solid” objects. • Same cost as the original: $1300. • Buy it at Staples, or at Cubify.com. 5 Inside the Cartridge • Chip in cartridge tracks how much material used. • No actual sensing. 6 Changing Cartridges • Takes several minutes for the extruder to heat. • Never yank filament out of the extruder! – Can damage the mechanism. – If a piece breaks off, the extruder will clog. – Once it heats up, the filament comes out easily. • Always reinstall the thumbscrew to protect the cartridge. 7 The Cube Extruder Heated section Image from cubifyfans.blogspot.com 8 Cutting the Filament A simple 45o cut will help to prevent jams in the extruder.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Maker Community Aroundan Open Hardware Platform
    Building a Maker Community Around an Open Hardware Platform Fabio Morreale1, Giulio Moro1, Alan Chamberlain2, Steve Benford2, and Andrew P. McPherson1 1Centre for Digital Music, Queen Mary University of London, UK 2Mixed Reality Laboratory, The University of Nottingham, UK 1{f.morreale,g.moro,a.mcpherson}@qmul.ac.uk 2{alan.chamberlain,steve.benford}@nottingham.ac.uk ABSTRACT on shared interests or shared usage of particular technical tools This paper reflects on the dynamics and practices of building [8, 22]. a maker community around a new hardware platform. We ex- Most studies of maker communities have focused on estab- amine the factors promoting the successful uptake of a maker lished, stable communities [8, 24, 26, 28, 44, 46]. Compar- platform from two perspectives: first, we investigate the tech- atively little is known about how new maker communities nical and user experience considerations that users identify as emerge, partly because the identification of a group of people the most important. Second, we explore the specific activities as a “community” can only be done with any certainty in retro- that help attract a community and encourage sustained partici- spect. In particular, the process by which user groups develop pation. We present an inductive approach based on the case around new digital tools, and how design decisions influence study of Bela, an embedded platform for creating interactive the dynamics of the user community, merit further study. audio systems. The technical design and community building processes are detailed, culminating in a successful crowdfund- In this paper, we present a longitudinal study of the emergence ing campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maker Movement in Education
    The Maker Movement in Education Mary Rinehart, M.A.Ed. The Maker Movement in Education Have you ever made something? Have you ever shared your gift with another? Making and sharing is part of what makes us human. A makerspaces is a facility where people share resources and collaborate to build and innovate products. Makerspaces make tools available to people who want to design and create something new. The maker movement has allowed ideas to be turned into inventions by giving people access to the tools and collaborative space that they need to prototype a design. Before makerspaces were developed, an innovative idea could cost anywhere from $50,000- $300,000 to turn into a prototype. It had to be researched, designed, prototyped, and then it would be market tested. If the results were favorable, it had a chance at making it out of the gate as a new product. A beginning entrepreneur had few options but using his or her own funds or borrowing funding to make the project happen. Makerspaces have made it much more efficient to innovate. A new idea can now be researched, designed, prototyped, and market tested by the entrepreneur. A person no longer needs to The need for makerspaces has risen out of send something out to engineers to be 3 things: designed, and cut. An entrepreneur can do it 1. The need for qualified STEM themselves by taking classes at a makerspace professionals entering the workforce and filling in any gaps of knowledge online. If (US Dept. of Commerce expects 17% they have a worthy idea, they can pursue it growth in STEM fields between 2014- and see if people would be willing to purchase 2024) a product that they are interested in making 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Through Experience Research Summary
    Research Summary Innovation Through Experience Reshaping Learning Spaces for Makers, Hackers, and Coworkers Key Insights How do people become innovators? In today’s economy, it’s often a hands-on approach. A growing community of makers, • Universal access to the Internet and breakthroughs in hackers, and coworkers are creating an emerging culture of manufacturing have democratized innovation, creating “learning by doing” that is shifting how future workers learn a new driver for the economy. to innovate. • To thrive in this economy, people need opportunities As schools prepare the next generation to engage in this maker to tinker (make), deconstruct (hack), and network economy, they’re creating a new kind of learning space where (cowork). students can engage in a combination of hands-on processes • Academic institutions have an opportunity to prepare and networking to bring their ideas to life. To better understand the next generation of innovators by designating this shift, Herman Miller researchers leveraged insights from learning spaces for making, hacking, and coworking. prior Herman Miller research on the Future of Learning, toured • The most effective innovation spaces combine all three university campuses, and interviewed education and business activities in one centrally located site that’s thought leaders. approachable to everyone. Innovation Through Experience 1 Research Summary Map of participating sites WA. ME. MT. N.D. VT. OR. MN. N.H. WI. N.Y. ID. S.D. MA. CT. MI. WY. R.I. PA. IA. N.J. NE. NV. OH. MD IL. IN. DE. UT. W. CO. VA. DC. CA. VA. KS. MO. KY. N.C. TN. The SHED, University of CA, Berkeley Geek Group AZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Practices of Inclusion in Maker and Hacker Spaces with Diverse Participation
    Paper ID #23107 MAKER: Identifying Practices of Inclusion in Maker and Hacker Spaces with Diverse Participation Adam Stark Masters, Virginia Tech Adam S. Masters is a doctoral student and Graduate Research Assistant at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. They received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from University of Delaware and are currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Engineering Education at Virginia Tech. Adam’s research interests include access, equity and social justice in engineering with particular attention to the experiences of women & LGBTQ+ engineering students. Dr. Lisa D. McNair, Virginia Tech Lisa D. McNair is a Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, where she also serves as Director of the Center for Research in SEAD Education at the Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology (ICAT). Her research interests include interdisciplinary collaboration, design education, communication studies, identity theory and reflective practice. Projects supported by the National Science Foundation include exploring disciplines as cultures, liberatory maker spaces, and a RED grant to increase pathways in ECE for the professional formation of engineers. Dr. Donna M. Riley, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Donna Riley is Kamyar Haghighi Head of the School of Engineering Education and Professor of Engi- neering Education at Purdue University. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 MAKER: Identifying Practices of Inclusion in Maker and Hacker Spaces with Diverse Participation Abstract Some have hailed the emergence of maker spaces as an opportunity to broaden participation of underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education, engaging participants in open, creative, and supportive spaces for learning and applying practical STEM knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?
    sustainability Article Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability? Jeremy Millard 1,*, Marie N. Sorivelle 2, Sarah Deljanin 1, Elisabeth Unterfrauner 3 and Christian Voigt 3 1 International Center, Danish Technological Institute, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; [email protected] 2 Ideas and Innovation, Danish Technological Institute, DK-2630 Taastrup Copenhagen, Denmark; [email protected] 3 Centre for Social Innovation, A-1150 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] (E.U.); [email protected] (C.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +45-7220-1417 Received: 31 May 2018; Accepted: 26 June 2018; Published: 28 June 2018 Abstract: ICT has already revolutionized content creation and communications. In principle, today, everybody with Internet access, the right skills and equipment can produce digital content composed of virtual “bits” and make it instantly available across the globe. The same is now happening to manufacturing for everyone with access to tools like 3D printers. This inter-changeability of bits and atoms is being called the maker movement, which started as a community-based, socially-driven bottom-up movement but is today also impacting mainstream manufacturing through increased efficiencies, distributed local production and the circular economy. The maker movement thus has significant promise for increasing social, economic and environmental sustainability, but is it currently living up to this potential? This paper reports on work undertaken by the European-funded MAKE-IT project has examined this question through detailed qualitative and quantitative empirical research, including ten in-depth case studies across Europe and a detailed examination of 42 maker initiatives at Europe’s foremost city-based maker faire, supplemented by extensive secondary research.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Maker Literacy
    Intro to Maker Literacy Sarah Nagle Creation and Innovation Services Librarian [email protected] Memorable Making Experience Think about a memorable making experience you had in the past... Maker Movement Timeline ● 2001 - MIT FabLab created ● 2005 - Dale Dougherty launches Make Magazine and the next year holds the first Maker Faire ● 2005 - RepRap 3D printers - first low-cost, self-replicating 3D printer ● 2006 - Techshop opens in CA ● 2011 - Fayetteville Free Library (NY) opens makerspace ● 2013 - present - More universities start opening makerspaces ● 2014 - National Week of Making, White House Maker Faire Makerspaces What is a makerspace? A place where people gather together to make things and collaboratively learn about making things together. What’s the Big Deal? People have always been makers...so what’s so different about the maker movement? Rise of makerspaces in education NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition: “The embedding of maker culture in higher education has made students active contributors to the knowledge ecosystem. They learn by experiencing, doing, and creating, demonstrating newly acquired skills in more concrete and creative ways.” (Becker et al, 2018) Maker Mindset What is a maker mindset? ● Consumer → Creator ● Design sensitivity ● Failure-positive outlook ● Empowered to change the world! 3D Printing: What is it? Simple definition: The creation of a physical object based on a 3D computer model, layer by layer, in an additive process. Types of 3D Printing: Fused Deposition Modeling Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Types of 3D Printing: Stereolithography Stereolithography (SLA) Types of 3D Printing: Selective Deposition Lamination Selective Deposition Lamination (SDL) or Paper Printing Image Source: Mcor Technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • OSHWA Nominee Forms
    OSHWA Nominee forms What is your first Will you be able and last name as to commit 5-10 you want it to hours a month to appear on the being on the ballot? Why do you want to be on the board? What qualifies you to be a board member? board? I've been working on the Linux kernel community for over 10 years now and have been in the trenches on dealing with companies addressing all regulatory concerns to support 802.11 drivers openly without firmware, and when firmware was required convinced companies to release firmware as open source. 802.11 was one of the last frontiers for getting proper support from vendors upstream on Linux, the experience I see the open source hardware movement as a complete necessity for the future of the overall Free gained in successfully addressing both legal challenges and Fear Uncertainty and and Open Source movement. There are two key principles I'd like to ensure our community Doubt in the industry over FOSS with wireless technologies should prove useful for understands, 1) Open Hardware development is a key requirement to the success of the open source helping the open hardware movement when faced with similar problems in the future community 2) Open Hardware development is very likely where the best evolutionary methodology for with newer technologies. the combination of best hardware and software will come about. I have also previously worked for a large non-fab silicon company, and have seen the I'd like to help connect the open hardware community with FOSS projects and ensure nothing stands inissues we face in the community with both a largely patent encumbered world, and the between the two.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony Before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission
    Hearing on China, the United States, and Next Generation Connectivity Testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission Internet of Things (IoT) Systems Risk Mitigation for Universities, Cities, and Institutions with Observations on 5G and China March 8, 2018 Chuck Benson University of Washington 1. Overview Internet of Things (IoT) Systems, combined with the underlying wired and wireless infrastructure that support them, have the potential to bring substantial value to government, cities, universities, other institutions, and companies. However, without thoughtful application and awareness of process and components, IoT Systems can also bring substantial risk and exposure to those same entities. Three broad risks of IoT Systems implementations to universities, institutions, and cities include (not in order of priority): • Supply chain risks • Poor selection, procurement, implementation, and management of IoT Systems • Lack of institutional governance and lack of awareness of social-technical issues in IoT Systems deployments Any of the above risks or, more likely, combination of these and others can have substantial negative impacts. Examples include, but are not limited to: • Use of large numbers of compromised IoT devices to build ‘botnets’ for Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. o One example is the October 2016 DDOS attacks, using Mirai malware, that brought substantial impact to Internet services such as CNN, Netflix, the Wall Street Journal, Twitter, and many others. i The previous month, a large scale IoT- based DDoS attack was launched against popular and prolific security researcher Brian Krebs ii o Another IoT-based botnet dubbed “Reaper” has been discovered by security researchers that appears to be substantially larger than the Mirai-based botnet used in the attacks of fall 2016.
    [Show full text]