Abstract
3D printing technology is an emerging educational tool that is becoming increasingly available in schools, public libraries, museums, and higher education institutions. Oftentimes, 3D printers are underutilized because instructors have limited experience with this technology and do not know how to integrate it into curricula. This chapter describes how 3D printing technology can be (1) introduced in a science teacher preparation program as a means of engaging prospective elementary teachers in active, collaborative, problem-based learning and (2) integrated into an existing science curriculum. We designed a 3D Printing Science Project to model a lesson for prospective teachers that they could implement with their future students in the elementary science classroom. After completing the project, prospective teachers reported a moderately high usefulness and ease of use of 3D printing technology and significantly higher design thinking abilities and attitudes toward science and teaching science. An analysis of participants’ project reflections, classroom discussions, and 3D printed objects provided further insight into their collaborative design experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appleton, K. (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Avery, L., & Meyer, D. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395–409.
Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: A pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47, 283–303.
Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition. Retrieved from Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE.
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through stem-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21151.
Bleicher, R. E., & Lindgren, J. (2005). Success in science learning and preservice science teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 205–225.
Chamberlain, S., & Meyers, M. (2016). Incorporation of 3D printing in STEM curricula. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science education’s “grand unifying theory.” The Clearing House, Sept/Oct., 9–12.
Crawfold, A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. Newstatter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford: Elsevier.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–75). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A Preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb12048.x.
Figg, C., Jennifer, R., Shannon, W., & Pelchat, K. (2018). Using Informal Learning of Makerspaces to Enhance Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018, Washington, D.C., United States. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182808.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goodrum, D., & Rennie, L. (2007). Australian school science education: National action plan 2008–2012 (Vol. I. The National Action Plan). Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra.
Haavi, T., Tvenge, N., & Martinsen, K. (2018). CDIO design education collaboration using 3D-desktop printers. Procedia CIRP, 70, 325–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.277.
Kazempour, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ science beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy: A multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26(3), 247–271.
Koch, J. (2006). Relating learning theories to pedagogy for preservice elementary science education. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice (pp. 31–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Mansfield, C. F., & Woods-McConney, A. (2012). “I didn’t always perceive myself as a science person”: Examining efficacy for primary science teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 37–52.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Franklin, T., Gerlovich, J., & McElroy, D. (2009). Teaching science for all children: An inquiry approach. Pearson.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106, 157–168.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about teaching science. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 27(5), 412–432.
Palmer, D. H. (2011). Sources of efficacy information in an inservice program for elementary teachers. Science Education, 95, 577–600.
Peoples, S. M., O’Dwyer, L. M., Wang, Y., Brown, J. J., & Rosca, C. V. (2014). Development and application of the elementary school science classroom environment scale (ESSCES): Measuring student perceptions of constructivism within the science classroom. Learning Environment Research, 17, 49–73.
Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 17–33). New York: Routledge.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York: Routledge.
Royalty, A., Oishi, L. N., & Roth, B. (2014). Acting with creative confidence: Developing a creative agency assessment tool. In L. Leifer, H. Plattner, & C. Meinel (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 79–96). Cham: Springer.
Schelly, C., Anzalone, G., Wijnen, B., & Pearce, J. M. (2015). Open-source 3-D printing technologies for education: Bringing additive manufacturing to the classroom. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 28, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2015.01.004.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., McClelland, J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2011). Impressions of a middle grades STEM integration program: Educators share lessons learned from the implementation of a middle grades STEM curriculum model. Middle School Journal, 43(1), 32–40.
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., et al. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 2.
Vones, K., Allan, D., Lambert, I., & Vettese, S. (2018). 3D-printing ‘ocean plastic’–fostering childrens’ engagement with sustainability. Materials Today Communications, 16, 56–59.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 34–41).
Woods-McConney, A., Wosnitza, M., & Sturrock, K. L. (2016). Inquiry and groups: Student interactions in cooperative inquiry-based science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 842–860.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Novak, E., Wisdom, S. (2020). Using 3D Printing in Science for Elementary Teachers. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_45
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_45
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)