Scaffolded activity-based learning for undergraduate additive manufacturing education: An empirically validated,OBE-aligned pedagogical framework integrating digital manufacturing workflows

Abstract

The effective delivery of additive manufacturing (AM) education in undergraduate engineering programmes requires a deliberate pedagogical shift from conventional lecture-based instruction toward structured experiential learning environments. This study presents, implements, and empirically evaluates a scaffolded activity-based learning (ABL) framework for an undergraduate AM course, grounded in Kolb's experiential learning cycle and aligned with Bloom's revised taxonomy across cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. The framework comprises three progressively complex activities: Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)-based component fabrication (guided application), structured-light reverse engineering (analytical reconstruction), and application-driven DLP resin prototyping (autonomous problem-solving). Performance was evaluated through criterion-referenced rubric assessment, course outcome (CO) attainment analysis, and structured student feedback, benchmarked against a contemporaneous conventional instruction cohort. The ABL cohort demonstrated consistent and statistically significant improvements across all six COs, with attainment gains of 17.5–20.7%. Student feedback ratings exceeded 9.4/10 for learning experience and hands-on skill development. The findings demonstrate notable improvements in students’ conceptual clarity, design competency, manufacturing process selection, and overall engagement. Furthermore, the approach significantly strengthened cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning domains, aligning effectively with outcome-based education principles. The study contributes an empirically validated, transferable pedagogical model addressing the theory-practice gap in AM education, with particular relevance for resource-constrained engineering programmes seeking evidence-based curriculum innovation.

Keywords

Teaching/learning strategies improving classroom teaching outcome-based education evaluation methodologies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Totuk

Selvi

Akar

. Fused filament fabrication in CAD education: A closed-loop approach. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2025; 53(1): 167–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190231215307.

Gibson

Rosen

Stucker

. Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Second Edition. New York: Springer Nature, 2015;1–498.

Gummaluri

VSSS

Kumar

Chamarty

, et al. Spatial visualization as the impetus for additive manufacturing education – An insight from computer-aided design perspective. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2026; 54(3): 807–836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190251330196.

Prince

. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 2004; 93(3): 223–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.

Kulkarni

Patil

Pawar

. Adoption of the conceive-design-implement-operate approach to the third year project in a team-based design-build environment. Procedia Comput Sci 2020; 172: 559–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.068.

Pawar

Metri

, et al. Evolving product development skills through group based activity instructions in engineering exploration course. Procedia Comput Sci 2020; 172: 314–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.051.

Pawar

Patil

Kulkarni

. Enhancing product development skills of engineering students through diversified group activities. J Eng Educ Transform 2023; 37(1): 20–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2023/v37i1/23128.

Sánchez Angeles

Capilla-González

Torres del Carmen

FdJ

, et al. Low-cost workflow for 3D digitization and prototyping in mechanical engineering education. Int J Mech Eng Educ 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190261419560.

Kolb

Boyatzis

Mainemelis

. Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In: Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. New York: Routledge, 2014, pp.227–247.

10.

Pawar

Kulkarni

Patil

. Project based learning: An innovative approach for integrating 21st century skills. J Eng Educ Transform 2020; 33(4): 58–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2020/v33i4/139423.

11.

Pawar

Patil

. Structured approach to enhance the quality of undergraduate capstone project: A case study. J Eng Educ Transform 2021; 34: 607–614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157229.

12.

Freeman

Eddy

McDonough

, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014; 111: 8410–8415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

13.

Stern

Rosenthal

Dresler

, et al. Additive manufacturing: An education strategy for engineering students. Addit Manuf 2019; 27: 503–514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.04.001.

14.

Sharma

Singhal

Gupta

. Innovative training framework for additive manufacturing ecosystem to accelerate adoption of three-dimensional printing technologies. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2018; 5(2): 170–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2017.0003.

15.

Bull

Haj-Hariri

Atkins

, et al. An educational framework for digital manufacturing in schools. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2015; 2(2): 42–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.2015.0009.

16.

Pikkarainen

Salminen

Piili

. Creating learning environment connecting engineering design and 3D printing. Phys Procedia 2017; 89: 122–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2017.08.020.

17.

Andersen

Pitkänen

. Empowering educators by developing professional practice in digital fabrication and design thinking. Int J Child Comput Interact 2019; 21: 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.03.001.

18.

Stavropoulos

Foteinopoulos

Stavridis

, et al. Increasing the industrial uptake of additive manufacturing processes: A training framework. Advances in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 2023; 6: 100110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aime.2022.100110.

19.

Ford

Minshall

. Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Addit Manuf 2019; 25: 131–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028.

20.

Suciu

Buruianǎ

Repanovici

, et al. Pedagogical methods for teaching the use of prototyping by 3D printers. Procedia Manuf 2019; 32: 356–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.225.

21.

Javaid

Haleem

. Additive manufacturing applications in orthopaedics: A review. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018; 9(3): 202–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.04.008.

22.

David

Ruth

Jane

. Peer learning in higher education: learning from & with each other. London: Taylor and Francis, 2014.