Keywords

1 Introduction

As a core methodology in architectural education (Salama 2017), studio design must constantly evolve to facilitate students to build competencies relevant to future practice. Studio allows students to learn to design and be designers (Dutton 1987) by studying curriculum topics and theoretical concepts in a practical context (Schon 1987) and simulating professional scenarios in an academic setting (Laurillard 2012). Although the basic structure of architectural design studio appears to be quite resilient to diverse cultural, social, and production changes over time (Schon 1987; Nicol and Pilling 2000), the impact of digital technologies asks for a rethinking of both design process and education in terms of new operation tools. Various publications discuss impact of digital technologies on architecture (Kolarevic 2005; Leach et al. 2005; Gramazio and Kohler 2008; Menges and Ahlquist 2011; Carpo 2012, 2017; Willmann et al. 2019), as well as technology-assisted learning (Anderson 2016) and its implementation in architectural studio pedagogy (Guler 2015; Masdeu and Fuses 2017; Ioannou 2018; Milošević 2021; Jones et al. 2021).

This paper explores the application of 3D printing (3DP) technology in architectural design studio education. The following research question arises from the premise that design and its tools have a bidirectional relationship: How can we employ 3DP tools in studio design to create a learning environment that allows future architects to better prepare for technological and professional challenges? In response to the research question, the objectives of the study are to (1) analyze diverse approaches of the implementation of 3DP technologies presented in the literature; (2) describe a studio design framework that includes the use of 3DP technologies and its implementation; and (3) summarize the challenges and opportunities of the proposed approach.

To address the research questions, an integrated literature review method was used to analyze, critically assess, and synthesize representative literature on the topic and generate new perspectives and framework. Furthermore, the new framework developed based on the literature review was empirically tested in the real educational setting and evaluated qualitatively (Groat and Wang 2013).

2 Literature Review

The literature on applying 3DP technology in architectural design education was searched using the following keywords: design studio, 3D printing, rapid prototyping, architectural education, in two main databases, Web of Science and Google Scholar. A total of fifteen relevant references were included in the content analysis. The themes identified in papers were concise into three main categories of research explained in the following sub-paragraphs.

2.1 Effects of Implementing of 3DP Technology in Design

The effects of the introduction of 3DP technologies into the architectural design curriculum have been reviewed by several authors (Loy 2014; Kim et al. 2021; Chiu et al. 2015; Lugo Nevarez et al. 2016; Kwon et al. 2017; Greenhalgh 2016; Boumaraf and İnceoğlu 2020; Budig et al. 2014; Paio et al. 2012; Gu et al. 2010; Bøhn 1997; Kristiánová et al. 2018). For example, some studies indicated that rapid prototyping (RP) technology piqued the interest of students who were previously accustomed to the manual creation of physical models and 3D modeling for design through physical models (Loy 2014; Kim et al. 2021). Furthermore, students confirmed in several studies that the use of 3DP helped them develop innovative thinking, enhanced learning motivation (Chiu et al. 2015; Lugo Nevarez et al. 2016; Kwon et al. 2017; Greenhalgh 2016), and considerably improved their design capabilities (Boumaraf and İnceoğlu 2020; Budig et al. 2014).

Many students’ designs were more complicated as they adopted 3DP technology for prototyping. RP enabled them to materialize physical models with far more conceptual and geometric complexity than traditional methods (Greenhalgh 2016; Budig et al. 2014). Findings show that the use of RP, in some cases, significantly improved students’ spatial cognition since they were able to perceive their design proposals in the physical environment (Paio et al. 2012). Also, making complex models on smaller scales made it easier for students to focus on the overall design concept than the details (Budig et al. 2014).

However, several authors noted that students had not used the full potential of a given technology (Gu et al. 2010). Previous was, in many cases, due to the time constraint and tight schedules that studio design projects often imply. Some studies indicate that students still tend to use 3DP technology for the final presentation of projects instead of for research (Bøhn 1997; Kristiánová et al. 2018).

2.2 Implementing 3DP Technology in the Studio Course

Additive manufacturing is thought to be one of the rising technologies in education that will help students learn and foster creative thinking (Chiu et al. 2015). The students’ perceptions of 3DP technology in the architectural studio could be linked to their previous experience with model-making in project creation. Integrating 3DP made students accustomed to digital modeling more interested in constructing physical models using 3DP rather than traditional building methods in a workshop (Loy 2014).

Students with less CAM experience had more difficulty learning about the 3DP process and RP technology (Sampaio et al. 2013), and they should be given lectures to improve their skills (Kwon et al. 2017). Depending on their academic level, students are likely to be exposed to different teaching methods. Students with less expertise should be guided through the concepts and objectives initially, but if no methods are offered, they will be challenged to solve problems and be more proactive. More open teaching methodologies and experiments can be employed with more advanced students. They could be primarily introduced to concepts and a brief description of the problem and have greater flexibility through the project development phase (Celani 2012).

Also, Fernandes (Fernandes and Simoes 2016) explained how students in higher education with various learning styles react to using 3DP as a collaborative learning resource in their classroom. The study found that most students prefer to test their theoretical knowledge using 3DP models. It gives them more freedom and technical experience than simply having a theoretical approach to the subject (Fernandes and Simoes 2016).

2.3 Methods of Implementing 3DP Technology in the Curriculum

Currently, the design process is highly dependent on using information and digital technologies (Paio et al. 2012). It is generally agreed that the implementation of RP in curricula enforced innovative thinking and improved the sense of materiality and space. Additionally, using 3DP continuously fosters practical aspects of design studio methodology while model-making represents a learning-by-doing mode (Kristiánová et al. 2018).

A seven-step pedagogical model was introduced at the City University of Hong Kong to all freshmen from various fields of study enrolled in the same class. It is based on classic instructional design theory and the Conditions of Learning by Sampaio et al. (2013). The aim was to bring in 3DP technology in the educational process and analyze its practical problems. It is considered that 3DP is one of the emerging technologies in education that would support student learning and encourage innovative thinking (Chiu et al. 2015).

Another example is from the Singapore ETH Centre for Global Environmental Sustainability, where the research project “Design of Robotic Fabricated High Rises” explores the possibilities of robotic high-rise construction. This design studio aims to shift the physical model as a crucial explorative tool combined with computational design, with robotic technology used to fabricate it. Rather than simply developing forms, the design research studio focuses on designing techniques that merge design computation with robotic manufacture (Budig et al. 2014).

3 Case Study

The case reported is from the University of Belgrade—Faculty of Architecture (UB–FA). It focuses course Studio Design Project: Spatial Structures, which is taught annually during the fall semester at the Master Studies of Architecture–Module Architectural Engineering (MASA–AE). The course is designed to introduce architectural students to the challenge of designing spatial structures. In this course, students acquire theoretical and methodological knowledge and skills required for project development following ARB Criteria at Part 2 (ARB 2010) through practically oriented design research.

3.1 Course Preparation

Findings of the literature review related to techniques, concepts, and learning perspectives of 3DP technology served as a starting point for establishing an educational framework for reworking the studio design curse. As a result, two aspects of the studio design curriculum were adopted: (1) project task and (2) teaching method. It was essential to specify engaging, a problem-based assignment that fosters the exploration of complex designs using digital technology (Greenhalgh 2016; Budig et al. 2014), facilitating the acquisition of competencies relevant to future professionals (Foque 2011). Furthermore, teaching methods standardly applied in design studio education were complemented with workshops and skill-up classes in which students developed and improved skills in using digital tools for design production (Fernandes and Simoes 2016). These were organized in collaboration with the external experts to introduce, to a certain degree, a collaborative manner of work in a studio environment essential for future practice (Gnaur et al. 2015).

3.2 Course Implementation

The classes, which took place twice a week, included instruction, open discussions, the presentation of students’ works, and workshops to enhance students’ skills. Students develop their expertise through an active process of information gathering analysis, exploration, synthesis, testing, discussions, reflections, refinement, presentation, and evaluation in the collaborative learning space of the design studio. The process was broken down into five phases to ensure the achievement of learning outcomes: (1) analysis, (2) model explorations, (3) conceptual urban and architectural design development, (4) conceptual structural design development, and (5) post-production. Each phase had its goals and outcomes and diverse tools for performing activities.

Digital tools (including fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3DP devices, selective laser sintering (SLS) 3DP device, 3DP pan, and 3D scanner) were chosen regarding the (1) design problem, (2) size (Leach 2017), and (3) stage of the design process, and the function of the physical model (Fig. 30.1). Accordingly, for form exploration (phase 2), tools that enable fast production of physical models and evaluation of ideas were favored. In this case, the less precision and quality of the models were acceptable. To produce small-scale prototypes and functional models (phase 3), more sophisticated tools that construct precise models of material suitable for testing are required. Finally, models for design presentation (phase 5) were made using precise devices and materials with desired aesthetic qualities. Also, reverse engineering proved to be a good way to support the iterative nature of the design process.

Fig. 30.1
9 prototype 3D printed models. 1 to 3 are patterns of molecular bond formation. 4 to 6 are asymmetrical and symmetrical raised platforms with unevenly and evenly distributed legs. 6 to 9 are similar to rectangular and square meshes.

Models produced with different 3DP devices used for exploration, assessment, and presentation of designs

Full size image

3.3 Course Results and Assessment

The outcomes of the educational process are two types of experiences: (1) operational experience and (2) subject experience. Operational experience is related to practicing a design approach that can be reused in the continuation of the studies or professional practice. Accordingly, the framework enabled students to acquire knowledge and skills architects should possess to act competently in future working environments. On the other hand, subject experience concerns developing knowledge and skills by working on a particular topic. In this respect, the framework supported students in creating designs that display simultaneous consideration of diverse aspects—context, form, function, structure, materialization, and fabrication—using the holistic design approach.

The course was evaluated qualitatively using a questionnaire on the pedagogical work regularly filled out at the UB–AF at the end of each term. Students were very satisfied with the instructions and course materials; the consistency between classes and the scope of the course; their active participation; critical thinking and creativity; the volume and quality of recommended literature and learning resources; and their results, according to the results of the survey. Students were particularly motivated by the studio's research orientation and the opportunity to explore innovative concepts and technologies. However, students indicated that the course duration and hours of classroom activities were a bedside of the course. Furthermore, some students said that finishing tasks on time was difficult and time-consuming. Accordingly, better time management should be suggested, as learning new techniques and changing students’ learning and design methods requires time. The course results were displayed at the UB–FA final exhibition and as a web exhibition, which students found exciting and as a way to show their work to a larger audience.

4 Discussion

The paper provides a structure for an architectural design studio that integrates 3DP technologies and tests a new framework in a real-life educational context. Our teaching process was outlined for other educators and researchers to observe our experience, compare it to theirs, and consider alternative paths. It is crucial to analyze the findings in light of the study's and course's research limitations in this regard:

  • The research is restricted to a single teaching experience. For generalization, more work is needed, including a comparison of distinct findings across diverse educational contexts and study programs.

  • The course has technical constraints due to a lack of more sophisticated equipment that allows students to enhance their learning through hands-on activities such as building and testing large-scale prototypes or more sophisticated models made of diverse materials. Therefore, more resources are required to further improve the course in this respect.

The following advantages of implementing a 3DP studio design course could be identified:

  • Technologically advanced creative learning environment motivated students to link the logical way of thinking that requires parametric modeling with concept-based thinking.

  • When students have a physical model in front of them to analyze, they have a change in a mindset that occurs during the design process, in which they work on relevant challenges.

  • Students improved their understanding of spatial cognition and their competencies related to using this technology in the design process for effective exploration, assessment, and communication of ideas.

5 Conclusions

The findings show that using 3DP tools in a studio design course can aid design exploration, assessment, and presentation. Shared educational experience demonstrates how 3DP technology can improve learning methods, impact students’ design process, and elevate design exploration to previously unattainable levels of materiality, detail, complexity, accuracy, and aesthetics. The paper offers an example of how using technological resources could improve studio structure and facilitate achieving the desired learning outcomes, such as students developing competencies that will help them operate professionally in changing work contexts with the support of digital technologies. Finally, future studies that will include interdisciplinary research on 3D printing technology in studio design education to develop product design at various scales, typological frameworks, and timeframes could be advantageous.