Abstract
In this research we explore the pedagogical affordances associated with the use of a 3D printer in a middle school classroom (11–12 years old). We introduced the 3D printer in a classroom where no one, including the teacher, had prior knowledge of 3D printing. Lessons using the 3D printer were designed to correspond with the mathematics curriculum and benefit students’ mathematics learning. The use of 3D printing as a technological tool for learning mathematics, in particular, led to numerous failures. Failure was not designed for in the lesson plans, but rather was a product of a malfunctioning new technology and the inexperience of the classroom teacher and students. These failures were deemed to be “productive” because of the way in which they inspired more learning and perseverance, rather than the way in which the task was initially conceptualized. Our study utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods as evidence. Implications for classroom instruction and further research will be discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmad, R., Samsudin, K. A., & Ismail, A. (2006). On improving spatial ability through computer-mediated engineering drawing instruction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(33), 149–159.
Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: A phenomenographic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 61–79.
Bell, D., Wooff, D., McLain, M., & Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Analysing design and technology as an educational construct: An investigation into its curriculum position and pedagogical identity. The Curriculum Journal, 28, 539–558.
Benken, B. M., & Stevenson, H. J. (2014). STEM education: Educating teachers for a new world. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(1), 3–9.
Brighouse, T. (2008). Education without failure? RSA Journal, 154(5535), 36–39.
Galster, D. C. (2013). The dissertation story: Effective behaviors and practices of principals that encourage and support teacher instructional risk-taking and innovation in high achieving middle schools. Milwaukee: Cardinal Stritch University.
Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Cham: Springer.
Grace, J. (2014). The end of post-sale confusion: How consumer 3D printing will diminish the function of trademarks. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 28, 263.
Heemsoth, T., & Heinze, A. (2014). The impact of incorrect examples on learning fractions: A field experiment with 6th grade students. Instructional Science, 42(4), 639–657.
Hoffman, T. (2015). M3D micro 3D printer. PCmag.Com.
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–425.
Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40, 651–672.
Kennedy-Clark, S. (2009). Designing failure to encourage success: Productive failure in a multi-user virtual environment to solve complex problems. In Paper presented at the learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines. EC-TEL.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 75–86.
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Developmental trends of creativity: What twists of turn do boys and girls take at different grades? Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 329–336.
Loibl, K., & Leuders, T. (2018). Errors during exploration and consolidation—The effectiveness of productive failure as sequentially guided discovery learning. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 39(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-018-0130-7.
Loibl, K., et al. (2016). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715.
Mazziotti, C., Rummel, N., Deiglmayr, A., & Loibl, K. (2019). Probing boundary conditions of productive failure and analyzing the role of young students’ collaboration. NPJ Science of Learning, 4(2), 2–9.
Ng, O.-L. (2017). Exploring the use of 3D computer-aided design and 3D printing for STEAM learning in mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(3), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0036-x.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training/OMET. (2005). The Ontario curriculum grades 1–8 mathematics (Revised ed.). Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ozkan, G., & Topsakal, U. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09547-z.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Reynolds, R., & Caperton, I. H. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 267–289.
Sahin, D., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students’ achievements and attitudes towards science education. Computers & Education, 144, 1–11.
Song, Y. (2018). Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 979–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3.
Tran, J. (2015). The law and 3D printing. The John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law, 31(4), 504–520.
Vande Zande, R. (2007). Design education as community outreach and interdisciplinary study. Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 3(1), 1–22.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Grant (435-2014-1111) and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Grant (418387-2013) to the third author, Dr. Donna Kotsopoulos, Huron University, London, Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickson, B., Weber, J., Kotsopoulos, D. et al. The role of productive failure in 3D printing in a middle school setting. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 489–502 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09568-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09568-z