Exploring the Potential of 3D-printing in Biological Education: A Review of the Literature.

Science education is most effective when it provides authentic experiences that reflect professional practices and approaches that address issues relevant to students' lives and communities. Such educational experiences are becoming increasingly interdisciplinary and can be enhanced using digital fabrication. Digital fabrication is the process of designing objects for the purpose of fabricating with machinery such as 3D-printers, laser cutters, and Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machines. Historically, these types of tools have been exceptionally costly and difficult to access; however, recent advancements in technological design have been accompanied by decreasing prices. In this review, we first establish the historical and theoretical foundations that support the use of digital fabrication as a pedagogical strategy to enhance learning. We specifically chose to focus attention on 3D-printing because this type of technology is becoming increasingly advanced, affordable, and widely available. We systematically reviewed the last 20 years of literature that characterized the use of 3D-printing in biological education, only finding a total of 13 articles that attempted to investigate the benefits for student learning. While the pedagogical value of student-driven creation is strongly supported by educational literature, it was challenging to make broad claims about student learning in relation to using or creating 3D-printed models in the context of biological education. Additional studies are needed to systematically investigate the impact of student-driven creation at the intersection of biology and engineering or computer science education.

[1]  Helen R. Quinn,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2013 .

[2]  Russell T. Vought.  Charting a Course for Success: America's Strategy for STEM Education , 2018 .

[3]  Pedro A. Noguera,et al.  Social justice education for teachers : Paulo Freire and the possible dream , 2008 .

[4]  Jordan A Tanner,et al.  A Three‐Dimensional Print Model of the Pterygopalatine Fossa Significantly Enhances the Learning Experience , 2020, Anatomical sciences education.

[5]  Terri Hedgpeth,et al.  Research and Teaching: Methods for Creating and Evaluating 3D Tactile Images to Teach STEM Courses to the Visually Impaired. , 2015 .

[6]  René F. Kizilcec,et al.  Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost , 2020, Science Advances.

[7]  Jacquelyn K. S. Nagel,et al.  Teaching bioinspired design using C–K theory , 2017 .

[8]  H. Schweingruber,et al.  STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research , 2014 .

[9]  Dorothea S. Ynsn.  The Project Method , 1936 .

[10]  Tomáš Helikar,et al.  Student Understanding of DNA Structure–Function Relationships Improves from Using 3D Learning Modules with Dynamic 3D Printed Models , 2019, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[11]  M. Vaccarezza,et al.  3D-Printed specimens as a valuable tool in anatomy education: A pilot study. , 2018, Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft.

[12]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[13]  Stephanie D. Teeter,et al.  Assessing changes in attitudes toward engineering and biomechanics resulting from a high school outreach event. , 2020, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  Susan Hall,et al.  Enhancing Understanding in Biochemistry Using 3D Printing and Cheminformatics Technologies: A Student Perspective , 2019, Journal of Chemical Education.

[15]  George E. DeBoer,et al.  A history of ideas in science education : implications for practice , 1992 .

[16]  Marcelo Worsley,et al.  Children Are Not Hackers: Building a Culture of Powerful Ideas, Deep Learning, and Equity in the Maker Movement. , 2016 .

[17]  C. Fosnot.  Constructivism : theory, perspectives, and practice , 1996 .

[18]  Lee Martin,et al.  Making as a Pathway to Engineering and Design , 2016 .

[19]  L. Cremin,et al.  THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SCHOOL PROGRESSIVISM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION , 1962, History of Education Quarterly.

[20]  Gary S. Stager,et al.  Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom , 2013 .

[21]  K. Sheridan,et al.  Designing for Resourcefulness in a Community-Based Makerspace , 2016 .

[22]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[23]  B. F. Skinner,et al.  The Shame of American Education. , 1984 .

[24]  Alexandre Gillet,et al.  Tangible interfaces for structural molecular biology. , 2005, Structure.

[25]  J. Dewey.  Experience and Education , 1938 .

[26]  R Hickel,et al.  3D printed replicas for endodontic education , 2019, International endodontic journal.

[27]  J. Dewey.  My Pedagogic Creed , 1926 .

[28]  Paul Oh,et al.  The Composition of Making , 2016 .

[29]  University of California-Davis,et al.  The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education , 2017 .

[30]  Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,et al.  Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky , 1980 .

[31]  Samantha Vettese,et al.  3D-printing ‘Ocean plastic’–Fostering childrens’ engagement with sustainability , 2018, Materials Today Communications.

[32]  D. Delprato,et al.  Some fundamentals of B. F. Skinner's behaviorism. , 1992 .

[33]  Kristin Cook,et al.  Creating a Prosthetic Hand: 3D Printers Innovate and Inspire a Maker Movement , 2015 .

[34]  Bronwyn Bevan,et al.  The promise and the promises of Making in science education , 2017 .