فاعلية التعلم القائم على دمج تقنية الطباعة ثلاثية الأبعاد في تعلم مادة الفيزياء في تنمية الممارسات العلمية والهندسية لدى طلبة الصف العاشر في سلطنة عمان

Asma Abdullah AlShabnuti; Sulaiman Mohammed Al-Balushi; Ali Mahdi Kazem; Abdullah Khamis Ambusaidi

doi:10.35516/edu.v51i4.8343

Authors

Asma Abdullah AlShabnuti Ph.D Scholar, Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1454-2788
Sulaiman Mohammed Al-Balushi Curriculum and Instruction Department, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-1203
Ali Mahdi Kazem Psychology Department, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-0279
Abdullah Khamis Ambusaidi Minestry of Education, Muscat, Oman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1463-0209

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/edu.v51i4.8343

Keywords:

3D Printing, scientific and engineering practices, engineering design, STEM.

Abstract

Objectives: The current study aims to identify the effectiveness of learning based on integrating 3D printing technology into physics to enhance scientific and engineering practices (SEPs) among 10^th grade students.

Methods: A quantitative approach and quasi-experimental research design were adopted, with a control and experimental group. The latter was taught by integrating 3D printing technology, whereas the control group was taught using the traditional method. The sample consisted of (131) 10^th grade male and female students. A science and engineering practices test was applied to measure students’ practices in these areas.

Results: Findings showed there were statistically significant differences in favor of the experimental group in overall science and engineering practices. Specifically, the results showed that these differences were manifest in six practices: Asking questions and defining the problem, using and developing models, planning and implementing surveys, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in debate based on evidence, and obtaining, evaluating and exchanging information.

Conclusions: By integrating 3D printing technology into learning, students could acquire the practices of scientists and engineers, enabling them to approach problem-solving in a concrete, technical manner using cutting-edge industrial revolution technologies. The study recommends integrating these techniques into science-related school curriculum and advocates for further research to gauge their effectiveness across different variables.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anwar, S., & Menekse, M. (2021). A systematic review of observation protocols used in postsecondary STEM classrooms. Review of Education, 9(1), 81-120.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3235

Barbosa, A., & Isable, V. (2024). The use of Tinkercad and 3D printing in interdisciplinary STEAM education: A focus on engineering design, STEM Education, 4(3): 222–246. DOI: 10.3934/steme.2024014

Brand, B. R. (2020). Integrating science and engineering practices: outcomes from a collaborative professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(13), 1-13.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00210-x

Brunsell, E., Kneser, D. M., & Niemi, K. J. (2014). Introducing teachers and administrators to the NGSS: A professional development facilitator's guide. NSTA Press.‏

Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10-16.

Chang, C. C., & Yen, W. H. (2023). The role of learning style in engineering design thinking via project-based STEM course. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(4), 1125-1143.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1957776

Chang, C. C., & Yen, W. H. (2023). The role of learning style in engineering design thinking via project-based STEM course. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(4), 1125-1143.‏

Chen, Y. C., & Terada, T. (2021). Development and validation of an observation‐based protocol to measure the eight scientific practices of the next generation science standards in K‐12 science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(10), 1489-1526.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21716

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., ... & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers' beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers & Education, 158 (1), 1-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103983

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement, (7th Edn.). McGraw Hill.

English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7

Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107-129.‏

Guimarães, L. M., & Lima, R. D. S. (2021). A systematic literature review of classroom observation protocols and their adequacy for engineering education in active learning environments. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(6), 908-930.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1937946

Hsu, P. S., Lee, E. M., Ginting, S., Smith, T. J., & Kraft, C. (2019). A case study exploring non-dominant youths’ attitudes toward science through making and scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 185-207.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09997-w

Hughes, J. (2021). krippendorffsalpha: An R package for measuring agreement using Krippendorff's alpha coefficient. R Journal, 3 (1), 413-425.

Inoma, A. O., Ibhadode, O. O., & Ibhadode, A. A. (2020). The perception and deployment of 3D printing in the Nigerian educational sector for science and engineering programs. Scientific African, 10(1), 1-10.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00641

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 22(1), 159-174.‏ https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-15.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9

Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., Ray Diez, C., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.

MakerBot. (2021). Trends in 3D Printing and STEAM Education. Author.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Science and engineering for grades 6-12: Investigation and design at the centre. The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices،Crosscutting Concepts، and Core Ideas. The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.‏ The National Academies Press.

Noorani, R. (2017). 3D printing: technology, applications, and selection. CRC Press.

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 Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412-432.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9733-5

Pantazis, A., & Priavolou, C. (2017). 3D printing as a means of learning and communication: The 3Ducation project revisited. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 1465–1476.

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert and Is. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Ablex.

Papert, S. (1993). The Children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(1), 1–11.

Pearson, H. A., & Dubé, A. K. (2022). 3D printing as an educational technology: theoretical perspectives, learning outcomes, and recommendations for practice. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 3037–3064.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10733-7

Promethean. (2017). How to use 3D printers in the classroom? https://resourced.prometheanworld.com/use-3d-printers-classroom/

Rio, G. T., & Rodríguez, J. (2022). Design and assessment of a project-based learning in a laboratory for integrating knowledge and improving engineering design skills. Education for Chemical Engineers, 40(1), 17-28.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2022.04.002

Scaradozzi, D., Guasti, L., Di Stasio, M., Miotti, B., Monteriù, A., & Blikstein, P. (2021). Makers at School, Educational Robotics and Innovative Learning Environments: Research and Experiences from FabLearn Italy 2019, in the Italian Schools and Beyond. Springer Nature.‏

Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C. M., & Reiser, B. J. (2017). Helping students make sense of the world through next generation science and engineering practices. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA Press).

Şen, C., Ay, Z. S., & Kiray, S. A. (2020). A design-oriented STEM activity for students’ using and improving their engineering skills: the balance model with 3D printer. Science Activities, 57(2), 88-101.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2020.1805581

Simarro, C., & Couso, D. (2021). Engineering practices as a framework for STEM education: a proposal based on epistemic nuances. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-12.‏ https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00310-2

Simarro, C., & Couso, D. (2021). Engineering practices as a framework for STEM education: a proposal based on epistemic nuances. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 53.‏

Toma, R. B., Yánez-Pérez, I., & Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á. (2024). Towards a Socio-Constructivist Didactic Model for Integrated STEM Education. Interchange, 55 (1), 1-17.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09513-2

Ullah, A. S., Tashi, Kubo, A., & Harib, K. H. (2020). Tutorials for integrating 3D printing in engineering curricula. Education sciences, 10(8), 194.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10080194

Van Horne, K. A. T. I. E., Penuel, W. R., & Bell, P. (2016). Integrating science practices into assessment tasks. STEM Teaching Tools, 30(2), 1-16.‏

Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering as the focus for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25-29.

Wisdom, S., & Novak, E. (2019). Using 3D printing to enhance STEM teaching and learning: Recommendations for designing 3D printing projects. In M. Khine & N. Ali (Eds.), Integrating 3D Printing into Teaching and Learning Practitioners’ Perspectives (pp. 187-205). Brill.‏

Wright, L., Shaw, D., Gaidos, K., Lyman, G., & Sorey, T. (2018). 3D pit stop printing: A student competition supports engineering design. Science and Children, 55, 55–63.