Examining the Integration of Virtual Design and 3D Printing in Science Education for Prospective Teachers

Yıl 2024, , 72 - 100, 23.09.2024

Adem Koç , Mutlu Nisa Ünaldı Coral

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1279635

Öz

This study was carried out with the participation of preservice science teachers. A three-dimensional design program Tinkercad and a three-dimensional printer were used in this research in line with the stages of engineering design process and project-based learning method. At the beginning of the implementation process, the preservice teachers were informed in detail by the researchers and provided with design guidelines in the virtual environment. Trials were carried out in biology and computer laboratories according to the weekly plan. Working in groups of 3-5, preservice teachers agreed on a design after having worked on their projects individually on the topic they chose and developed the one they agreed on as the outcome. At the end of the process, the final design of each group was printed through a 3D printer and semi-structured interviews were conducted with one volunteer teacher from each group. Based on the emerging themes and codes, it was discerned that positive feedback was provided by the preservice teachers concerning the conducted process. Their recommendations highlighted the necessity for an increased prevalence of such applications. Furthermore, they advocated that analogous applications and technological advancements should be inherently integrated into the training curriculum across diverse fields.

Anahtar Kelimeler

virtual design, 3D printing, STEM education, project-based learning, prospective science teachers

Proje Numarası

2021-1-AP2-4365

Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Bilimleri Eğitiminde Sanal Tasarım ve Üç Boyutlu Yazıcı Entegrasyonunun İncelenmesi

Öz

Fen bilimleri içeriğinde soyut kavramların oldukça yoğun olduğu bir öğrenme alanıdır. Konu ve kavramlara göre somutlaştırma işlemleri geleneksel laboratuvar ve fiziksel tasarım atölyelerinde gerçekleştirilebilse de, bu her zaman mümkün olamamakta ya da daha zor olabilmektedir. Bu sorunların üstesinden gelebilmek ve öğrenmede somutlaştırmanın önemine vurgu yapmak için, bu çalışma fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının katılımı ile soyut kavramların çoğunlukta olduğu Biyoloji III dersi kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Haftalık olarak ikişer ders saati şeklinde mühendislik tasarım süreci aşamalarına ve proje tabanlı öğrenme yöntemine göre gerçekleştirilen bu uygulamada üç boyutlu tasarım programı olan Tinkercad programı ve üç boyutlu yazıcı kullanılmıştır. Uygulama süreci başında öğretmen adayları araştırmacılar tarafından ayrıntılı olarak bilgilendirilerek sanal ortamda tasarıma ilişkin çalışma yaprakları sunulmuştur. Haftalık belirlenen plan çerçevesinde uygulamalar biyoloji ve bilgisayar laboratuvarlarında gerçekleştirilmiştir. 3-5’er kişilik gruplar halinde çalışan öğretmen adayları seçtikleri konuda gerçekleştirdikleri bireysel tasarımlarından sonra bir tasarıma karar verip, onu nihai tasarım olarak geliştirmişlerdir. Süreç sonunda her bir grubun nihai tasarımı üç boyutlu yazıcıda bastırılmış ve her gruptan gönüllü birer öğretmen adayı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen görüşmeler sonucunda elde edilen tema ve kodlar tablolaştırılarak sunulmuştur. Öğretmen adaylarının sürece ilişkin olumlu görüş belirttikleri, bu tür uygulamaların sayısının artması gerektiği ve diğer konu alanlarında da benzer uygulamaların gerçekleştirilebileceği yönünde görüş belirttikleri görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sanal tasarım, 3D yazıcı, STEM eğitimi, proje tabanlı öğrenme, fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Destekleyen Kurum

Mersin Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi

Proje Numarası

2021-1-AP2-4365

Teşekkür

Araştırmanın gerçekleştirilmesine katkılarından dolayı Mersin Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi'ne teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

• Adiguzel-Ulutas, M., Elmas, R., Karakaya, F., & Yilmaz, M. (2023). Examination of the studies on STEM education approach in the context of engineering design process in Türkiye. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 21(2), 1111-1130. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1294562
• Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: A phenomenographic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9300-9
• Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The effects of project based learning on undergraduate students' achievement and self-efficacy beliefs towards science teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1015a
• Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
• Brunsell, E. (Ed.). (2012). Integrating engineering and science in your classroom. NSTA press.
• Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996.
• Casey, B. (2012). STEMEducation: 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.
• Connors-Kellgren, A., Parker, C. E., Blustein, D. L., & Barnett, M. (2016). Innovations and challenges in project-based STEM education: Lessons from ITEST. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 825-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9658-9
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches ( 2. Baskı). SAGE Publications.
• Diffily, D. (2001). Real-world reading and writing through project-based learning. Real World Reading, Reports. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED453520.pdf
• Diffily, D. (2002). Project-based learning: Meeting social studies standards and the needs of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40-59.
• Doganay, A. & Tok, S. (2012). Öğretimde çağdaş yaklaşımlar. İçinde, Doğanay, A. (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (239-297). Pegem Akademi.
• Egenrieder, J. A. (2007). Community-focused, project-based learning to promote diversity in STEM. Journal of Virginia Science Education, 1(2), 5-16.
• Emrahoglu, N., & Sagliker, S. (2010). The effects of computer based- multimedia courseware on students academic achıvement in the teaching the topics of gravitation and general relativity. Journal of Çukurova University Social Sciences Institute, 19(2), 237-248.
• English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
• Erdem, M. (2002). Project based learning. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 22, 172-179. Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Where and how 3D printing is used in teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.10.028
• Gardner, M., & Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1283-1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9927-6
• Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9612-x
• Gungor-Seyhan, H., & Okur, M. (2020). Investigation of teachers' opinions about the importance of mobile technology support in science laboratories. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 1242-1271. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.809127
• Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project-based learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1306a
• Horejsi, M. (2014). Teaching STEM with a 3D Printer. The Science Teacher, 81(4), 10.
• Huri, N. H. D., & Karpudewan, M. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of Integrated STEM-lab activities in improving secondary school students’ understanding of electrolysis. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 495-508. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00021F
• Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/165
• 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(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
• Kahraman, E., & Maras, M. (2022). Analysis of pre-service science teachers' development processes of 3D designs and design products. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 5(2), 296-320. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.223
• Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
• Kingston, S. (2018). Project based learning & student achievement: What does the research tell us? (PBL evidence matters, volume 1, no. 1). Buck Institute for Education.
• Koc-Unal, İ. (2019). Investigation of the effects of virtual and real laboratory applications on the academic achievement of 5th grade science course electric unit teaching. [Master's thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University]. National Thesis Center.
• Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
• Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (s. 317-34).
• Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Acollaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1086/461779
• Lucas, K. L. (2021). The use of 3-D modeling and printing to teach the central dogma of molecular biology. Science Activities, 58(2), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2021.1918048
• Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons, international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Australian Council of Learned Academies, Final report. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059041
• Mesutoglu, C. (2017). Developing teacher learning progressions for K-12 engineering education: Teachers’ attitudes and their understanding of the engineering design. [Doctoral Thesis, Middle East Technical University]. National Thesis Center.
• Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian K12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 14(1), 1-6.
• Mobley, M. C. (2015). Development of the SETIS instrument to measure teachers' self-efficacy to teach science in an integrated STEM framework.
• Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press.
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2011). Beginning engineering, science and technology educator guides: An educator’s guide to the engineering design process grades 6-8. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/630754main_NASAsBESTActivi tyGuide6-8.pdf
• 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.). The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National Academies.
• 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
• Ozcakir-Sumen, O., & Calisici, H. (2019). An investigation of mathematics projects developed by prospective primary school teachers in STEM project-based learning environment. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 38(1), 238- 252. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.521012
• Pabuccu-Akis, A., & Demirer, I. (2023). Integrated STEM activity with 3D printing and entrepreneurship applications. Science Activities, 60(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2022.2120452
• Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. In Design, Make, Play (pp. 35-51). Routledge.
• Scalfani, V. F., & Sahib, J. (2013). A model for managing 3D printing services in academic libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 72(Spring), 1-13.
• Sen, 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
• Tarhan M. & Gulmez A. (2021). Project-based learning approach to gaining entrepreneurship skills: Japan case. National Journal of Education Academy, 5(1), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.32960/uead.881576
• 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.
• Verner, I., & Merksamer, A. (2015). Digital design and 3D printing in technology teacher education. Procedia Cirp, 36, 182-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.041
• Wendell, B. K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 513e540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026.