Effects of 3D Printing Project-based Learning on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Attitudes, Science Content Knowledge, and Anxiety About Teaching Science
3D printing technology is a powerful educational tool that can promote integrative STEM education by connecting engineering, technology, and applications of science concepts. Yet, research on the integration of 3D printing technology in formal educational contexts is extremely limited. This study engaged preservice elementary teachers (N = 42) in a 3D Printing Science Project that modeled a science experiment in the elementary classroom on why things float or sink using 3D printed boats. The goal was to explore how collaborative 3D printing inquiry-based learning experiences affected preservice teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy beliefs, anxiety toward teaching science, interest in science, perceived competence in K-3 technology and engineering science standards, and science content knowledge. The 3D printing project intervention significantly decreased participants’ science teaching anxiety and improved their science teaching efficacy, science interest, and perceived competence in K-3 technological and engineering design science standards. Moreover, an analysis of students’ project reflections and boat designs provided an insight into their collaborative 3D modeling design experiences. The study makes a contribution to the scarce body of knowledge on how teacher preparation programs can utilize 3D printing technology as a means of preparing prospective teachers to implement the recently adopted engineering and technology standards in K-12 science education.
KeywordsScience education 3D printing Science self-efficacy Science teaching anxiety Interest in science Preservice elementary teachers
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- ACT. (2015). The Condition of STEM 2015. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/National-STEM-Report-2015.pdf
- Agency by Design. (2015). Maker-centered learning and the development of self: preliminary findings of the Agency by Design Project. Project Zero: Harvard Graduate School of.Google Scholar
- Annetta, L. A., Frazier, W. M., Folta, E., Holmes, S., Lamb, R., & Cheng, M. –. T. (2013). Science teacher efficacy and extrinsic factors toward professional development using video games in a design-based research model: The next generation of STEM learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 47–61.Google Scholar
- 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Aydin, S., & Boz, Y. (2010). Pre-service elementary science teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs and their sources. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 694–704.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
- Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.Google Scholar
- Casey, B., (2012). STEM Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future, A Report by the (U.S. Congress) Joint Economic Committee Chairman’s Staff Senator Bob Casey, April 2012.Google Scholar
- Chien, Y.-H. (2017). Developing a pre-engineering curriculum for 3D printing skills for high school technology education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2941–2958.Google Scholar
- Diamond, Maerten-Rivera, Rohrer, & Lee. (2014). Effectiveness of a curricular and professional development intervention at improving elementary teachers' science content knowledge and student achievement outcomes: year 1 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 635–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The Nationís Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006-466). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Hodgin, C.M. (2014). Science teaching anxiety: The impact of beliefs on teacher preferences of instructional strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/24744.
- Jaipal-Jamani, K., &, Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 175–192, 2.Google Scholar
- Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher education edition.Google Scholar
- Kazempour, M. (2014). I can’t teach science! A case study of an elementary pre-service teacher’s intersection of science experiences, beliefs, attitude, and self-efficacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 77–96.Google Scholar
- Leduc-Mills, B., & Eisenberg, M. (2011). The UCube: a child-friendly device for introductory three-dimensional design. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Maloy, R., Trust, T., Kommers, S., Malinowski, A., & LaRoche, I. (2017). 3D modeling and printing in history/social studies classrooms: initial lessons and insights. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2).Google Scholar
- Mellis, D. A., & Buechley, L. (2012). Case studies in the personal fabrication of electronic products. Paper presented at the proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference, ACM, New York.Google Scholar
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press https://doi.org/10.17226/21836, 2016.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Ohio Department of Education (2011). Ohio’s New Learning Standards: Science Standards. Retrieved from: http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Ohios-Learning-Standards/Science/ScienceStandards.pdf.aspx
- Olson, A. & Rowland, T., Science Buddies Staff. (2014). How Much Weight Can Your Boat Float?. Retrieved August 5, 2016 from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Aero_p020.shtml).
- 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, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Senler, B. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy: the role of attitude, anxiety and locus of control. Austrailian Council for Educational Research, 60(1), 26–41.Google Scholar
- Trust, T., & Kommers, S. (2017). From 2D thinking to 3D printing: preservice and in-service teacher teams explore a new technology. In M. Grassetti & S. Brookby (Eds.), Advancing Next-Generation Teacher Education through Digital Tools and Applications: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Yi, S., Park, H., & Lee, Y. (2016). Development of the TPACK-Based Curriculum with 3D Printer for Pre-service Teachers. Paper presented at the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016, Washington, DC, United States. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/173978
- Yin, Y. (2005). The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. (PhD dissertation), Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions: Floating and sinking. Science Scope, 8, 34–39.Google Scholar
- Yürük, N. (2011). The predictors of pre-service teachers’ anxiety about teaching science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(1), 17–26.Google Scholar