Additive manufacturing (AM) is projected to require 60,000 jobs in the UK by 2025, but there are a series of barriers to the industrial application. One of the most problematic is non-comprehensive knowledge in design for AM (DfAM). This study aims to test the effect of two undergraduate DfAM teaching approaches. A visual and audial approach (design lecture) and a kinaesthetic, problem-based learning (PBL) approach (manufacturing laboratory) were compared against technical and participant perspective criteria to assess the learning, engagement, and self-efficacy of the students. The participants were set a DfAM challenge; to redesign a bracket. The technical merits of the designs were evaluated after teaching through a design lecture alone or after a design lecture and manufacturing-laboratory. The participant's perspective was evaluated at the end of the study. The groups who undertook both the design lecture and manufacturing laboratory showed a mean technical mark of 100% for criteria (C) 13 ("Parts have been consolidated into one part"), 91.7% for C14 ("The bracket is hollowed where possible") and 100% for C16 ("Manufacture was successful"). These technical marks demonstrate a statistically significant increase over those of the groups who undertook the design lecture alone. The participant evaluation reinforced this result; the manufacturing laboratory was chosen more frequently in answer to questions on applicability (Q13 = 83%), preparedness (Q15 = 83%), and gaining confidence in DfAM (Q31 = 74%). This study demonstrates the importance of PBL in DfAM, both to increase technical aptitude of the student (creativity and manufacturing) and their perspective on their own learning and self-efficacy.