Introduction
In the digital era we live in, three-dimensional (3D) printing emerges as a powerful tool with the potential to connect the digital world and the representation of reality in a creative and innovative way (González-Zamar & Abad- Segura, 2023). 3D printing has become a trend in art and, in turn, like innovation, has begun to be implemented in educational projects to improve learning processes.
Innovation and creativity are fundamental for humans, as they help them to develop innovative ideas, to adapt effectively to the ever-changing world, to find connections between different concepts, in short, to develop divergent thinking. Moreover, creativity should not be understood as a trait that only virtuous people possess; everyone should have access to it.
The term “digital footprint” in the title is used as a conceptual metaphor that alludes to the lasting and traceable impact that the incorporation of digital technologies, such as 3D printing, has on the educational environment, particularly in the field of art. It does not refer to the digital footprint in its computerized sense (digital identity), but rather to the transformative mark that these technologies leave on the teaching-learning process.
In terms of education, 3D printing can contribute significantly to flexible teaching-learning methodologies, as it requires good collaboration and creativity from both students and teachers (González-Zamar et al., 2023). However, with the saturation of technologies in contemporary society, concerns arise about their real contributions in these areas and the challenges they face. Therefore, this study seeks to identify previous studies that address the use of 3D printing in art and education.
Origin of 3D printing
Additive manufacturing or 3D printing is defined
as production of 3D objects from a digital
template. The manufacturing is done by additive layering using diverse types of materials such as plastic, metal, nylon and many others (Mpofu et al., 2014). 3D printing signifies a breakthrough for all of humankind and today it finds utility in multiple sectors. Its origins date back as far as the 1970s, however, the first 3D printing patent was granted to Hideo Kodama of Japanese origin in 1981. Kodama used a photosustainable resin that was polymerized by ultraviolet (UV) light. Nevertheless, his research publication did not have any significant impact, and his project was abandoned by the institution to which it was submitted (Wohlers et al., 2016; Brown, 2023)
.
Three years later, in 1984, three French inventors, Le Mehauté, de Witte and André, filed a patent application for the industrial production of components through the curing of photosensitive polymers by UV radiation. However, they were unsuccessful and their application was rejected. In the same year, in the United States, Chuck Hull applied for a patent for the stereolithography process. The inventor used this word to define the creation of objects by hardening layers of their cross-section. He is also credited with significant contributions to the field of additive printing, as he created the STL (Standard Triangle Language) file format and methods for computing and breaking up models into layers to make them printable. The STL (stereolithography) format is widely used to export and share 3D models, particularly for 3D printing applications, as it encodes the surface geometry of an object using a mesh of triangles. However, STL files are not directly interpreted by 3D printers. Instead, they must first be processed by slicing software, which converts the geometric data into machine- readable instructions, typically in formats such as G-code, 3MF, or AMF. These formats contain the specific commands that control the printer’s movements, layer height, and material extrusion during the printing process. Therefore, while STL is essential in the design and preparation stage, it must undergo preprocessing before fabrication. Hull obtained the patent in 1986 and created the
company 3D Systems Corporation to introduce the first 3D printer for commercial use, the SLA- 1 (Stereo Lithography Apparatus) (Wohleres et al., 2016; Ochoa Guevara, 2023).
After Hull’s significant contribution, new innovations have been presented in the field of additive manufacturing, thanks to which the market has been opening with new methods, materials and patents, among which Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), invented and patented by Scott Crump in 1989, stands out. This method consists of passing a wire of thermoplastic material through a hot nozzle that melts the material and creates layers of the part to be printed. It is currently the most popular method among the public. The early 1990s were marked by a great development of the technology and several 3D printing companies started to appear (Brown, 2023).
In 2004, Adrian Bowyer created the RepRap project, whose name is an abbreviation of Replicating Rapid-prototyper. Its purpose is to create affordable printers that can replicate themselves (Heredia and Franco, 2014; Dixit, 2022). This project had significant impact among the public thanks to its free use and easy production. As a result, multiple commercial 3D printing companies were subsequently born, among which we can find: Ultimaker, Makerbot, Creality, Prusa, etc. These companies have been growing in the market to become leaders in the distribution of 3D printers with utility in multiple fields, from engineering, biotechnological applications such as organ and tissue printing, to construction and sports industries, etc. (Ochoa Guevara, 2023; Dixit, 2022; Siemiński, 2021).
Educational and artistic use of 3D printing
The rapid evolution of technology in the field of 3D printing has transformed many different sectors, as we saw at the end of the previous chapter. Its contribution to the area of education has been equally important, thanks to the speed with which it has developed into a versatile and easily accessible technology. 3D printing is an innovative form of plastic expression that allows students to explore different artistic practices and
offers new possibilities for interaction. One such case is the use of 3D printing itself (González- Zamar, 2024).
3D printers have opened up new possibilities and learning tools for educators and students that serve to develop the STEAM pedagogical approach whose abbreviation stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (Wendt et al., 2020). This approach is gaining more importance in the educational environment due to its goal which is to cultivate creative skills and train problem-solving skills, indispensable competences in today’s society where creative imagination turns out to be more important than theoretical knowledge. Therefore, this approach uses innovative tools such as coding, robots, drones, virtual reality and 3D printing (Chun, 2021).
It may give the impression that 3D design programs are intended only for professionals, but in recent years free tools have been developed and they are available to everyone, they are free and easy to use, such as, for example, Tinkercard. Also, the prices of 3D printers have been decreasing and they are becoming more and more accessible in educational environments (Farnicka & Serrano, 2019).
To understand how far the educational use of 3D printers can go, here are some of the fields in which they are finding their usefulness: historical artifacts can be printed to examine them, design and engineering students can print their works to examine a real world. In relation to geographical topics, it is interesting to print maps to visualize geographic data, chemistry students can print models of molecules for better analysis, in the field of biology it is very useful to print the shapes of cells, viruses, organs and other biological elements for further study, etc. (Assante et al., 2020).
3D printing marks a major step forward in terms of innovation in education, and among the many benefits offered by its use, the following stand out: the engagement and emotion that this technology generates among students who can actively participate in all stages, from design to the creation of objects; the active participation
Mariana Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Kristyna Malikova
of students that fosters their motivation in the learning process; new learning possibilities thanks to the direct manipulation of 3D models of objects discussed in classes that would normally be difficult to access and their 2D form would not provide the same level of information; the development of problem-solving skills by overcoming various difficulties of the used 3D printing technology. In addition, the use of 3D printers proves to be especially useful as a support tool to improve the learning process of students with difficulties, such as people with visual impairment (Assante et al., 2020).
It can be observed that 3D printing can have an infinite number of contributions in the educational system. In fact, the technologies have begun to gain great importance and indispensability in the daily life of students, and there is evidence of the impact of 3D printing at all educational levels due to its important benefits in terms of stimulation of imagination and creativity, creation of 3D art, development of spatial perception and many other aspects. However, regarding the relevance of 3D printing in education, it is essential to highlight the importance of teacher training in this area to maximize the benefits in the integral development of students (Chun, 2021).
Despite the immense importance of 3D printing in education, teachers are confronted with two major challenges when integrating technologies into teaching: the time constraints due to curricula and the lack of experience and training in these areas. It is important to understand the relevance of the interdisciplinary nature that these technologies allow to work on and to develop several skills in students at the same time. Therefore, it is essential to provide professional development opportunities for teachers to improve the entire teaching-learning process, to connect learning with the world outside of the classroom (Wisdom & Novak, 2020).
The teacher is responsible for ensuring that the use of innovative technologies is in line with
the learning objectives. It is necessary to have the competences to be developed very well defined, to have a solid knowledge base in terms of cognitive education and, finally, to master the tools to be used, as in this case would be 3D printing. The teacher becomes the guide during the process and the students’ learning will depend on the scaffolding that the teacher can offer (Sullivan, 2020).
It is important to distinguish between digital modeling and 3D printing. Digital modeling refers to the computer-assisted three-dimensional design process, using specialized software such as Tinkercad, Fusion 360, or Blender, in which virtual representations of objects are created. 3D printing, on the other hand, is the physical process by which these digital models are materialized using a printer that deposits layers of material, usually plastic (such as PLA or ABS), until a tangible object is formed. The two processes are complementary, but not synonymous.
In addition to its instrumental value, 3D printing in art education raises new questions about the relationship between the creative process and the final object. The use of digital tools transforms the notion of authorship and authenticity in art. This debate becomes relevant in educational settings, where digital reproduction can challenge learning based on individual expression and manual technique.
Finally, it is essential to remember that visual and plastic expression are key educational domains that goes beyond mere artistic creativity. When effectively integrated into the educational environment, 3D printing enriches the learning process, caters to diverse learning modalities and contributes to the holistic development of students. This holistic approach positions visual expression as an essential component in educational training, demonstrating that technology can and should be used responsibly and beneficially for everyday life and academic development (González-Zamar, 2024).
Materials and methods
For the analysis and interpretation of data, the methodology of a qualitative systematic review has been selected, and its general objective is to identify previous studies that deal with the use of 3D printing in art and education. The following research question is posed: Is the use of 3D printers in artistic education beneficial?
Systematic review
This section contextualizes the database searches that have been carried out to identify studies relevant to the topic under discussion and then presents the data obtained in the process together with the criteria taken into account. In this sense, the review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach, using Scopus as the primary database. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2024, in English or Spanish, and specifically addressing the use of 3D printing in art teaching contexts. Opinion pieces, theses, non-indexed documents, or those with no direct link to the main topic were excluded. A thematic approach was used for the qualitative analysis of the results.
Database
For this systematic review, Scopus was selected as the database of choice. Scopus is a large, multidisciplinary database that provides access to bibliographic information, including abstracts and citations. This database was launched by the academic publisher Elsevier and its tools help to identify relevant information, follow research trends, track new published research and identify experts in the field. In this context, the Scopus database was chosen due to its high
editorial quality standards, its international multidisciplinary coverage, and its reliability in obtaining up-to-date and relevant scientific publications. It is recognized that future research could expand the search scope to databases such as Web of Science, ERIC, or Google Scholar, in order to complement the findings presented. The main Boolean operators used were: AND and OR, linking the following descriptors: “3d print” OR “additive manufacturing” AND art OR education.
In the first search with the formula mentioned above, 3,729 results were obtained, where the year of publication ranges from the year 2005 to 2025. Next, the search was filtered by subject area (limited to Social Sciences and Arts and Humanities), by document type (limited to Article) and by language (limited to English). After this selection, the number of results decreased to 113 results, where all the year of publication ranges from 2013 to 2024. To obtain even more precise results it was necessary to exclude other research areas with little relevance to the topic (Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Chemical Engineering; Decision Sciences; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Health Professions; Bussines, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Material Science; Psychology; Physics and Astronomy; Mathematics; Chemistry; Dentistry; Energy; Environmental Science; Medicine; Computer Science; Engineering). After this last filter, the total of results was 26 articles.
The table 1 shows the results of the research with the respective search formulas used, the results of the first screening, the filters applied with the successive results and the result after exclusion of non-relevant areas.
Mariana Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Kristyna Malikova
Table 1: Initial database search (2005-2025)
Source: Own elaboration, (2025)
Database
Search formula
Initial num- ber of results
Filters
Number of results
Scopus
"3d print"
OR "additive manufacturing" AND art OR education
3,729
Subject areas limited to: Arts and Humanities, Social Scien- ces
Document type: Article
Language: English
113
Excluded areas: Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Chemical Engineering; Decision Sciences; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Health Professions; Bussines, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Material Science; Psychology; Physics and Astronomy; Mathematics; Chemistry; Dentistry; Energy; Environmental Science; Medicine; Computer Science; Engineering
26
It is recognized that limiting the search exclusively to the Scopus database could restrict the diversity of approaches included in this review. Future research suggests incorporating other complementary academic databases, such as Web of Science, ERIC, or Google Scholar, to enhance the variety and representativeness of the sources.
2.1.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
To reduce the substantial number of results that the first search yielded, the following screening has used inclusion criteria, which are filters used in article searches and should meet the following requirements:
Papers that relate the use of 3D printing to education or art within the area of Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences.
Article-type papers
Documents in English language
Availability of full text
On the other hand, articles that meet the following criteria would not be included in the literature review (exclusion criteria):
Papers related to research area other than Social Sciences or Arts and Humanities.
Papers related to the subject other than Education or Art
For the present study, only the Scopus database has been selected as a source to extract the necessary documents for the study. In the first
Studies included in the review
(n = 10)
Records deleted before selec- tion:
Records marked as ineligible by automation tool (n = 3,616)
Excluded reports:
Criteria 1: Papers related to research area other than Social Sciences or Arts and Humanities (n = 87)
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Business, Management and Accounting
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Computer Science
Decision Sciences
Dentistry
Earth and Planetary Science
Economics, Econometrics and Finance
Energy
Engineering
Environmental Science
Health Professions
Material Science
Mathematics
Medicine
Physics and Astronomy
Psychology
Criteria 2: Papers related to the subject other than Education or Art (n = 16)
Total of unrecovered reports
(n = 103)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 113)
Records identified
from:
Scopus (n = 3,729)
Included
Screening
Identification
Figure 1: Flow chart of the record selection process (2005-2025)
Source: Own elaboration, (2025)
“Identification” phase, 3,729 entries were displayed. Then, the documents that were marked as ineligible using the automation tool, i.e. after the application of the filters, 3,616 papers were eliminated, resulting in 113 documents suitable for retrieval. In the next “Screening” phase we
started from a base of 113 entries to which the above-mentioned exclusion criteria were applied. This process resulted in 10 articles that have been used for the preparation of this study, which meet the inclusion criteria described above (Figure 1).
Results
This section shows the most relevant and outstanding characteristics of the 10 articles that were selected through the screening described
above, which form the basis of this systematic review (Table 2).
Table 2: Studies included in the review (2005-2025)
Source: Own elaboration, (2025)
Authors Coun- tryww
Design Relation to Art/ Education
Educatio- nal context
Conclusions
Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024)
Ukraine A scoping review Artistic ceramics
General public and artists
This study emphasizes the growing role of additive technologies in artistic ceramics, highlighting their potential to innovate traditional practices and support educational development by expanding knowledge of materials, techniques, and the creative possibilities of 3D printing with ceramics.
The paper presents the results of two experiments
Malinka et al. (2024)
Czech Republic
Quantitative research approach
Education including art education
Secondary Education
demonstrating high student acceptance of 3D technology and positive impacts on student performance, and deals with the issue of incorporating 3D printing into the curriculum.
The authenticity of works of art is questioned in a view of 3D printing which can make an exact copy
Adler (2023) United States
Descriptive article Art authenticity General
public
of the art object. This Article explores the norm of authenticity of art, and shows why it is essential to understanding both the art market and the NFT phenomenon.
This paper illustrates how integrating 3D printing with arts-based literacy practices can enrich
Wargo et al. (2022)
Alhonkoski et
United States
Case study Art expression Preservice teachers
Secondary
educational experiences, enabling preservice teachers to critically engage with texts, explore social issues, and expand their understanding through multimodal expression.
This scoping review describes the use of 3D technology to support teaching and learning in health
al. (2021) Finland A scoping review Education
and Higher Education
care education. The findings describe positive effects on student learning related to skills, knowledge, students’ perceptions and emotions.
This paper analyses 3D printing program at an academic library that was used for educational or research purposes. The departments that have used
Horton (2021) United States
Quantitative research approach
Art accessibility Higher Education
the 3D printer the most have been: Mechanical Engineering and Energy Processes, Library Affairs, Architecture, Industrial Design, Curriculum and Instruction, Computer Science, Mass Communication and Media Arts and Geology.
In this work, mobile makerspaces like MAKE 3D integrate 3D printing into art education. Through interdisciplinary learning that bridges art, design,
Jordan et al. (2021)
United States
Mixed-methods approach
Art education and general public
and technology, MAKE 3D fosters kinaesthetic experiences that encourage artistic expression, problem-solving, and technical skills, expanding access to STEAM education in diverse, place-based contexts.
Reilly and Dawson (2021) | United Kingdom | Research Article | Art and Archaeology | General public | This paper describes human creative responses to a surface assemblage (a scatter) of lithic artefacts via the use of 3D printed replicas made with certain modifications in terms of colour and scale. |
Ye et al. (2020) | China | A systematic review and meta-analysis | Education | Secondary and Higher Education | The review shows that in teaching the human body using 3D printed models, the test results are not inferior to that of the conventional teaching group. Compared with the cadaver or 2D group, the 3D group had higher test scores. Compared with the conventional group, students in the 3D group had higher test accuracy, and the students found the 3D model more useful. |
Turner et al. (2017) | Canada | Descriptive article - collaborative research | Art accessibility | Elementary and Secondary Education, Museum | This article describes a research project about how children learn to 3D print in a museum, evaluating their technical understanding and interest in the cultural history of shoemaking. The use of 3D printing technologies in museum contexts encourages creative participation which helps engagement and enthusiasm with museum content and digital technologies. |
Mariana Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Kristyna Malikova
In the screening process, certain criteria were established that helped to derive the presented selection of articles, the main objective of which was to search for articles that identified the use of 3D printing in education and art. All the authors start from the key element of additive manufacturing and the utilities that this technology finds in the aforementioned areas and the benefits they bring.
The dates of the publications have shown that the existing literature and studies about this research are very recent, from which it can be deduced that the object of study is current and important. The publications range from 2017 to 2024, where most of them were published in the period from 2021 onwards.
Regarding the educational context, differences were observed in the educational levels addressed in the studies. Some papers focused on secondary education, such as Malinka et al. (2024), while others covered both secondary and higher education, such as Alhonkoski et al. (2021) and Ye et al. (2020). Jordan et al. (2021) and Horton (2021) worked in the higher education setting, with the latter also covering the general population. Wargo et al. (2022) focused their study on trainee teachers, while Turner et al. (2017) included both primary and secondary education in their research on museums. Finally, some studies targeted the public, such as Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024), Adler (2023), and Reilly and Dawson (2021).
After the analysis of the selected articles, the use of 3D printing in education brings multiple benefits that have been demonstrated by several studies. Within the field of art education, various thematic approaches were found. Some research studied the use of 3d printing in education in general, such as those of Alhonkoski et al. (2021) and Ye et al. (2020). Others focused specifically on art education, such as Malinka et al. (2024) and Jordan et al. (2021) or Wargo et al. (2022) who explored artistic expression in future teachers. In terms of accessibility to art, Horton (2021) and Turner et al. (2017) stand out. On the other hand, some studies approached art from different perspectives with an indirect relationship with education, such as the work of Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024) on the teaching of artistic ceramics, the study of Adler (2023) on authenticity in art and the analysis of Reilly and Dawson (2021) around art and archeology.
Regarding the incorporation of 3D printing in education as a pedagogical tool, authors such as Malinka, et al. (2024), Wargo et al. (2022), Jordan et al. (2021) and Horton (2021) justify the great benefits that 3D printing brings. Malinka et al. (2024) present research in secondary education that summarises the benefits that this technology brings to education such as increased student motivation, greater interactivity and attractiveness, improvement of students’ observation and concentration, creativity and spatial imagination, and statistically significant drop, in students’ boredom. This general
approach also encompasses art education. Apart from the benefits there are also certain problems that the educational system must face, such as low correspondence of existing materials with the educational framework, lack of a broader set of teaching materials and teachers’ lack of knowledge often leads to a decision not to purchase equipment.
Wargo et al. (2022) explore how 13 teacher trainees used 3D printing to transform sociocultural values and practices into 3D artifacts, enabling a construction of meaning that transcended the representational into the abstract. The process involved both design collaboration and critique and exhibition of the creations, fostering reflection and engagement with art education. On the other hand, Jordan et al. (2021) highlight the potential of 3D printing in art education through interdisciplinary approaches in STEAM projects. Their MAKE 3D initiative merges art, design, and STEM, promoting experiential learning and skill development in digital fabrication. Results show that participation in MAKE 3D improved awareness of the intersection between art and engineering, although differences in interest persisted between students from both disciplines. The study underscores that 3D printing not only facilitates artistic experimentation, but also fosters convergence between different fields of knowledge.
Horton (2021) is another author who justifies the relevance of 3D printing in the educational field, however, he operates in the university environment, where a long-term project has been carried out during which data has been collected and analyzed in relation to the introduction of 3D printers in the academic library. Through credit courses, library workshops, and more traditional outreach type events, the teaching- learning processes have been improved, as the printers were made available to the entire university community. On the other hand, the technology has also been made available to the public which expands the technology collection, perform outreach to certain groups, or market to specific departments. The author demonstrates that 3D printing can significantly help with the needs of teaching and research and demonstrates
the potential to expand in the future due to its positive results.
Another key area from the perspective of arts education, is the use of 3D printing in museum and heritage contexts is observed in multiple studies as Turner et al. (2017) and Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024). The study by Turner et al. (2017) demonstrated in a museum space that 3D printing can enhance the learning environment and make it more fruitful. It especially highlights the benefits that 3D printing has when used as a directed workshop in combination with museum- specific pedagogical tools. The author points out the fusion of technical-digital and cultural literacies that engages children with objects with historical-cultural value through a 3D design process. The findings affirm engagement and enthusiasm with both the content of the museum in which the research took place and with digital technologies, and further underline their better understanding.
Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024) explore the impact of 3D printing in artistic ceramics, highlighting its potential to transform both teaching and creative practice. Unlike printing with plastic or metal, 3D printed ceramics require an additional drying and firing process, which introduces unique challenges but also new possibilities for artists. The precision of this technology allows the creation of complex shapes and innovative textures, pushing the boundaries of traditional ceramic design. Despite some technical problems, such as deformation of models before firing, the research highlights the growing interest in clay 3D printing and its integration into art education, including collaborations with artist and ceramic 3D printing teachers to optimize its applications. The impact of 3D printing on the authenticity of art is a key topic in some research. We find new possibilities and contributions: Adler (2023) and Reilly and Dawson (2021) are the only authors who were selected in the process of the systematic review and who are concerned by the topic of 3D printing in art. The study by Reilly and Dawson (2021) highlights the properties of the most used material in 3D printing, PLA, such as biodegradability and biocompatibility with the human body. They created projects
whose purposes were replicas of lithic artefacts that were found in a cornfield. These replicas were made with certain modifications in terms of colour and scale. These are the great benefits of 3D printing, which makes it possible to replicate artefacts and for better analysis to enlarge them and even turn them into art through their colour modifications that add new meaning. The replicated and modified artefacts were introduced into the environment where the original elements were found to be rediscovered and to create new contexts.
Adler (2023) offers a unique perspective on the use of 3D printing that challenges a sensitive area of the authenticity of works. As can be seen in the previous study (Reilly & Dawson, 2021), highly advanced technologies can reproduce any object. As a result, art works and their authenticity are threatened by this technological advance. Building on this concern, Adler (2023) warns about the elimination of the visual distinction between copies and originals. Questions are raised about the value of art, whether in the future we will all be able to have the Mona Lisa at home and not have to travel to the Louvre to see it.
Regarding the topic of education, there are authors who have studied the contributions of
3D printing in relation to a better knowledge of the human body, enriching students in health care education (Alhonkoski et al., 2021; Ye et al, 2020). Alhonkoski et al. (2021) use a scoping review to demonstrate the positive effects of the use of 3D printing. This study of different research has demonstrated the usefulness of this technology especially in the field of teaching of anatomy. The authors also point out positive results from the perspective of learning outcomes and outcomes that supported learning for example students’ motivation. They highlight the benefits in multiple areas and includes improved skills, knowledge and empathic concerns which are in line with studies in medical education.
Likewise, Ye et al. (2020) discuss 3D print utility, where 3D printed models were found to be more useful than conventional models. After analyzing the selected studies in a systematic review, the authors show that most studies confirm that students who use 3D printing were more satisfied than the conventional group. Only one article does not show a statistical difference between the two groups. The study also highlights the speed with which students answer questions on certain medical topics, showing that the 3D printing groups took less time to answer questions compared to the conventional groups.
Mariana Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Kristyna Malikova
Discussion
This systematic review has shown that the use of 3D printers in artistic education is beneficial, since it has been possible to see its multiple applications in various educational contexts. Smith (2014) and Menano et al. (2019) concur that the integration of 3D printing in arts education has been demonstrated to engender creativity, critical thinking and active learning. The two studies highlight that this process, based on iterative design, allows students to define criteria, generate solutions, create digital prototypes and receive feedback. The reports also emphasize that 3D printing does not replace traditional techniques, but complements them
and expands creative possibilities. Furthermore, both studies emphasize the pivotal role of teacher training in facilitating effective integration of 3D printing in arts education, as well as the significant contribution of contemporary artists in inspiring students. However, the two studies diverge in their approach to implementation. Smith (2014) emphasizes the need for a clearly defined curriculum structure for 3D printing to have a significant impact on learning, while Menano et al. (2019) place more emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration as key to its success. Likewise, Menano et al. (2019) further highlight the potential of 3D printing to generate
new educational perspectives by integrating art and technology, while Smith focuses more on its practical application within traditional art education.
Zhang’s (2024) study demonstrates how 3D printing can enhance creativity and innovation in art education by facilitating the creation of intricate forms that are challenging to achieve manually. Digital tools such as Sculpt GL facilitate students’ experimentation, iteration of designs, and exploration of novel concepts beyond the limitations imposed by traditional materials. The study also emphasizes the interdisciplinary benefits of integrating art, design, and engineering, promoting both functionality and aesthetics. Nevertheless, Zhang (2024) aligns with Smith (2014) and Menano et al. (2019) in underscoring the necessity for adequate teacher training, systematic curriculum integration, and effective resource management. While the transformative potential of 3D printing in the domain of art education is indisputable, its success is predicated on the successful navigation of two significant challenges: the technical and the pedagogical. To ensure a harmonious balance between traditional and digital skills, it is essential to maintain a nuanced approach to the integration of 3D printing in art education.
While creativity and innovation have been widely highlighted as competencies promoted by the use of 3D printing in arts education contexts, the literature reviewed also demonstrates benefits in the development of spatial thinking, problem- solving, digital literacy, collaborative work, and project planning. These skills are fundamental in the context of 21st-century education, aligned with frameworks such as the Digital Competencies for Teachers (DigCompEdu) framework.
Following the contributions of Assante et al. (2020), the study by Chen and Chang (2018)
also highlights the potential of 3D printing in art education for students with visual impairments, overcoming challenges such as the lack of specialized teachers and appropriate materials. Through interviews and experimentation with the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivational model, the authors conclude that 3D printing facilitates the teaching of the concept of space in art, allowing students to perceive and create compositions with different depths (foreground, middle ground, and background). The utilization of 3D replicas of renowned paintings served to stimulate curiosity and enhance spatial understanding through tactile engagement. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of fostering students’ confidence in their artistic abilities and facilitating greater access to cultural spaces, such as museums and galleries, which serve to enrich learning and promote development in the visual arts. Museums were also highlighted as key areas from the perspective of arts education in relation to 3D printing by Turner et al. (2017) and Khyzhynskyi et al. (2024).
Furthermore, there are studies that analyse the advantages and disadvantages of using 3D printing in art education. Meng’s (2022) study examines the integration of 3D printing in secondary art education, highlighting its ability to enhance spatial understanding, creativity, and student interaction with art. Virtual modelling enables students to navigate 3D environments, engage with their artwork through simulations and virtual reality, and cultivate teamwork skills. Furthermore, the utilisation of 3D software has been shown to foster autonomy and motivation. However, the study also identifies challenges such as potential technology addiction, the time required to learn the software, and the risk of limiting creativity when over-relying on digital tools. To address these concerns, the author proposes a balanced integration of traditional and digital methods in art education.
Conclusions
Following a comprehensive analysis of the
10 selected articles, it can be concluded that 3D printing, used in different contexts (i.e. schools, educational institutions, universities and museums), acts as a versatile tool in the teaching-learning process in art education. It has been demonstrated that this technology can be employed to develop skills related to problem- solving, enhance subject matter comprehension, and stimulate students’ motivation and interest in learning, thereby fostering their commitment and enthusiasm. The usefulness and versatility of 3D printing in art have also been demonstrated, as it allows objects to be replicated with great precision and modified in aspects such as scale and colours, giving them new meaning. The ability to transform abstract concepts into tangible objects has been demonstrated to enhance spatial reasoning and artistic expression, broadening students’ perspectives on art and technology. However, concerns and controversies have been raised regarding the authenticity of artworks, which may be challenged by these technologies. The successful integration of 3D printing in art education is contingent on the provision of adequate teacher training, as educators must develop the necessary digital and pedagogical skills to guide students effectively and maximize the potential of this technology in the learning process.
The integration of 3D printing in artistic and
educational environments offers significant
potential to enrich learning and stimulate creativity. However, the studies reviewed reveal several areas that require further attention. Critical issues such as the question of possible weaponization and how to avoid it, licensing issues related to making replicas of certain objects and the lack of research on the contribution of 3D printing in art are not adequately addressed. There is also no mention of the technical challenges of 3D printers, such as the difficulty of printing minute details, the manufacturing of large objects, long printing times, the solidity of the material or its toxicity, especially relevant when the material comes into contact with children. These factors are the limitations not encountered in the selected studies and serve as a motivation for further research. It is also necessary to go deeper into the subject of art, as there have not been enough studies to analyze it.
The review shows that disciplines such as sculpture, industrial design, architecture, and digital art benefit most from the integration of 3D printing, due to their focus on three- dimensionality and prototyping. Regarding educational levels, the impact is especially significant in secondary and higher education, where students have greater technical and cognitive skills to harness the potential of these technologies. However, positive experiences are also recorded at elementary levels through adaptive approaches geared toward creative exploration.
Mariana Daniela González-Zamar, Emilio Abad-Segura, Kristyna Malikova
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the project developed at the University of Almería (Spain) thanks to the Departmental Collaboration Aid granted by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training.
Teaching Innovation Group nº 24_25_1_62C: Artificial Intelligence and Design Thinking: enhancing creativity.
Bibliographical references
