This activity encourages creativity through abstract thinking by giving students the parts to a puzzle without revealing the finished puzzle at first. There are 4 different parts - big corner gear, small corner gear, hub, connector - required to make the puzzle, which is a Rubik style cube, but with gear teeth interfaces between the corners.

Student are given 3D solid model part files in SolidWork format to start. Students are expected to open these parts in SolidWorks, examine them and then modify them to make them their own (personalize). A prompt I give them in class is to think about which surface meet interface with another part (I refer to these as working surfaces) and which surfaces do not (free surfaces). They need to consider that modifications to a work surface could adversely impact the function of the assembly. Adding protruding features to gear teeth might not allow them to slide by the mating gear teeth.

Their assignment after Session 1 is to use the makerspaces available to them to make 1 of each part (4 parts total). They were asked to explore more than 1 making method, so not just SLA. They were also asked to explore other creative aspects to making their parts - color, texture, etc.

In Session 2, they were asked to pool their parts with their group and consider how these might be fit together to make something purposeful. After about 15 minutes of letting them fit and take-apart the pieces, no groups were on the right track, so I produced an assembled version for them to view. Their assignment after session 2 was to make the correct number of parts of each piece (1 hub, 8 connectors, 4 large corners, 4 small corners) for Session 3.

In Session 3, students brought their parts and/or assembled cubes to class and we had a competition to see whose cube was the most creative / interesting. I selected 5 semi-finalists and then the class voted on their favorite from these cubes.

Access to makerspaces

Budget for material (if required)

Access to 3D solid modeling software (lab or download link)

In preparation for Session 1, I did a survey to determine which students had prior experience with 3D solid modeling and/or 3D printing. I formed groups so that those with 3D solid modeling and/or printing experience were dispersed in the groups as a resource for those students who lacked those skills.

Students were expected to export their part files in STL format to get them printed.

An interesting and unexpected outcome from Session 3 when students assembled their own gearcubes is that a few appeared to be slightly off, meaning the level of the large corner gear was close, but not flush, with the small corner gear. At first, I attributed this to tolerance, but actually, there is a gear timing relationship and in order to make the large and small corner gear flush, they need to assembled in a certain orientation to the hub.

I had intended to add another iteration (Session 4) to incorporate the EM concept of the customer. I wanted them now to envision a target user for this puzzle cube and to design and make another version for that user. For example, if the cube was hard to manipulate, maybe different materials could be used to provide more fluid movement, or if the shape could be modified to make it easier to grasp the parts to move them, etc.