Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The application of digital fabrication technologies to the art and design curriculum in a teacher preparation program: a case study

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent 5 years, digital fabrication technologies have not only advanced rapidly but have also become more user-friendly and affordable, especially regarding their educational uses. Due to these technologies’ capability to link virtual and physical making, educators have extensively discussed their potential impact on fostering a learning-by-doing constructionist approach to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at all levels of education. However, in K-12 art and design education, the uptake of digital fabrication technologies is lagging, and few studies have measured its potential benefits and how to equip preservice teachers with relevant knowledge and skills for technology-infused classrooms. This exploratory case study investigated how creative processes using digital fabrication technologies can benefit art and design education in the pre-service teacher program and K-12 education context. The data were collected via class observation, artifact analysis and questionnaire. The results showed that digital fabrication technologies had positive overall effects on preservice teachers’ learning in the following areas: problem-solving skills, accuracy in engineering, communicating ideas using effective visual presentation methods, collaborative learning, and understanding the implications of integrating technology into traditional art and design media and educational processes. Additionally, shortfalls were identified and suggestions made for further improvements for design education in teacher training programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alley, L. G. (1961). Three-dimensional models: How effective? Journal of Architectural Education, 15(4), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D. M., & Trebell, D. (2008). Design-without-make: Challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, S. (2016). Designing for the future of education requires design education. Art Education, 69(6), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. (1998). An international overview of curricular approaches and models in technology education. Journal of Technology Studies, 24(1), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J., & Browning, K. (2011). Creativity in digital art education teaching practices. Art Education, 64(5), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S., & Tavin, K. M. (2010). Drawing (past, present, and future) together: A (graphic) look at the reconceptualization of art education. Studies in Art Education, 51(4), 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp, E., Jimenez, R., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Tinio, P. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 481–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. (1987). Educational technology, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cradler, J., Freeman, M., Cradler, R., & McNabb, M. (2002). Research implications for preparing teachers to use technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 30(1), 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P. (2015). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • de La Harpe, B., Peterson, J., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E., et al. (2009). Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degennaro, A., & Mak, B. (2002). A diffusion model for computer art in education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delacruz, E. (2004). Teachers’ working conditions and the unmet promise of technology. Studies in Art Education, 46(1), 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, A., Hughes, J. E., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(3), 342–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • EDB. (2017). Arts education: Key learning area curriculum guide (primary 1–secondary 6). Retrieved from: http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculumdevelopment/renewal/AE/AE_KLACG_P1-S6_Eng_2017.pdf.

  • Edwards, A. (2012). New Technology and education: Contemporary issues in education studies. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. (1998). Manifesto for a digital Bauhaus. Digital Creativity, 9(4), 207–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettinger, L. F. (1988). Art education and computing: Building a perspective. Studies in Art Education, 30(1), 53–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, K. (1993). Aesthetics and the social production of computer graphics. In R. Muffoletto & N. Knupfer (Eds.), Computers in education: Social, political and historical perspectives (pp. 197–206). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner. (2017). Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.gartner.com/doc/3759564/hype-cycle-d-printing.

  • Gibson, I., Kvan, T., & Ming, L. W. (2002). Rapid prototyping for architectural models. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 8(2), 91–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V. (1999). Cognitive role of ill-structured representations in preliminary design. In J. S. Gero, & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design. Sydney: University of Sydney. Retrieved from: http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/df70.content.pdf.

  • Greenhalgh, S. (2016). The effects of 3D printing in design thinking and design education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), 752–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafeli, M., Stokrocki, M., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). A cross-site analysis of strategies used by three middle school art teachers to foster student learning. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 242–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, R., & Froelich, M. (1994). Defining technology and technological education: A crisis, or cause for celebration? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 179–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, T. C., & Lin, C. Y. (2017). From 3D modeling to 3D printing: Development of a differentiated spatial ability teaching model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 604–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, G., & Greh, D. (1991). Integrating computing into art education: A progress report. Art Education, 44(3), 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC horizon report: 2013K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, L., & Keane, M. (2016). STEAM by design. Design and Technology Education, 21(1), 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2002). CAD and creativity: Does the computer really help? Leonardo, 35(3), 327–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, F. (2005). Foundations for design education: Continuing the Bauhaus vorkurs vision. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 211–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S. (2001). What effect will digital technologies have on visual education in schools? In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, L. (2005). Pre-service art teacher negative attitudes and perceptions of computer-generated art imagery: Recommendations for pre-service art education programs. Visual Arts Research, 31(1), 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, C. (2003). Twenty years of research in information technology in education: Assessing our progress. Computers in Schools, 20(1/2), 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeja, S. S. (1983). Computer graphics: The new subject matter for the art curriculum. Art Education, 36(3), 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, B., & Degennaro, A. (1999). Computer graphics for art creation: Cultural biases against its acceptance in education. Computers and Graphics, 23(3), 419–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marner, A., & Örtegren, H. (2013). Four approaches to implementing digital media in art education. Education Inquiry, 4(4), 671–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, S., & Clapp, E. (2017). Considering the role of the arts and aesthetics within maker-centered learning. Studies in Art Education, 58(4), 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R., & Davison, M. (1996). Problem solving and the tyranny of product outcomes. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 1(3), 230–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(3), 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostert-van der Sar, M., Mulder, I.J., Remijn, L., & Troxler, P. (2013). Fablabs in design Education. In Proceedings of E&PDE 2013: International conference on engineering and product design education (pp. 629–634), 5–6 September 2013. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

  • Nemorin, S. (2017). The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of “3D making” in school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 517–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nia, M. G., & De Vries, M. J. (2017). Models as artefacts of a dual nature: A philosophical contribution to teaching about models designed and used in engineering practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 627–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., & Bloxham, S. (2013). Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers’ assessment practices in art and design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 12(2–3), 234–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., Yorke, M., & Blair, B. (2014). The answer is brought about from within you: A student-centred perspective on pedagogy in art and design. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 33(1), 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, R. M., & Buffington, M. L. (2016). Keeping up with our students: The evolution of technology and standards in art education. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(3), 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 95(3), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, B. F., Walther, J., & Radcliffe, D. (2007). Creativity and the use of CAD tools: Lessons for engineering design education from industry. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 129(7), 753–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolling, J. (2016). Reinventing the STEAM engine for art design education. Art Education, 69(4), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J., Dysard, G., & Arnold, J. (2005). Developing a new technology infusion program for preparing tomorrow’s teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutland, M. (2009). Art and design and design and technology: Is there creativity in the designing? Design and Technology Education, 14(1), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2009). Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sass, L., & Oxman, R. (2006). Materializing design: The implications of rapid prototyping in digital design. Design Studies, 27(3), 325–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siu, K. W. M. (1999). Improving design and technology education in Hong Kong. Journal of Art and Design Education, 18(3), 345–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uysal, V. S., & Topaloglu, F. (2017). Bridging the gap: A manual primer into design computing in the context of basic design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 36(1), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vande Zande, R. (2007). Design, form, and function in art education. Art Education, 60(4), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veisz, D., Namouz, E., Joshi, S., & Summers, J. (2012). Computer-aided design versus sketching: An exploratory case study. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 26(3), 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G. (2010). Emerging technologies in distance education. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Y. L., & Siu, K. W. M. (2018). The curriculum development and project-based assessment of design education in Singapore and Hong Kong secondary schools. In V. Wang (Ed.), Handbook of research on program development and assessment methodologies in K-20 education (pp. 220–243). Hershey PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwirn, S., & Vande Zande, R. (2017). Differences between art and design education—or differences in conceptions of creativity? Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cultural and Creative Arts, The Education University of Hong Kong, B1-1-F07, 10 Loping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong

    Min Jeong Song

Authors
  1. Min Jeong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Jeong Song.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, M.J. The application of digital fabrication technologies to the art and design curriculum in a teacher preparation program: a case study. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 687–707 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09524-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09524-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation