{"id":7312,"date":"2017-05-11T16:23:59","date_gmt":"2017-05-11T16:23:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2017-07-25T15:44:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-25T15:44:38","slug":"3d-modeling-and-printing-in-historysocial-studies-classrooms-initial-lessons-and-insights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-17\/issue-2-17\/social-studies\/3d-modeling-and-printing-in-historysocial-studies-classrooms-initial-lessons-and-insights","title":{"rendered":"3D Modeling and Printing in History\/Social Studies Classrooms: Initial Lessons and Insights"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u201cHow would you incorporate 3D modeling and printing into your curriculum and instruction?\u201d We asked this question to a group of college students who were preparing to enter the student teaching portion of their history\/social studies teacher license program. Puzzled by the question, the group was silent. \u201cIsn\u2019t 3D printing for math and science teachers?\u201d one teacher candidate finally asked, adding, \u201cI really don\u2019t see how I could use it in my world and U.S. history classes.\u201d<\/p>\n
To push the discussion forward, we told the teacher candidates that the field widely known as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is now being called STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics). Adding arts to STEM was a declaration that history and humanities teachers should inspire student learning by using digital tools and inquiry-based learning activities more commonly associated with science and mathematics disciplines.<\/p>\n
Inspired to think more broadly, the teacher candidates began envisioning the possibilities of 3D modeling and printing for history\/social studies education. One class member commented, \u201cRepresenting historical events with a physical object could help students better understand and remember those events.\u201d Another said, \u201c3D printing could be a way to apply history to real life.\u201d Everyone agreed that they wanted examples of how teachers and students were using 3D modeling and printing in classrooms.<\/p>\n
In this paper, we present findings from four case studies describing how teams of middle school level preservice and in-service history\/social studies teachers incorporated 3D modeling and printing into lesson planning and instructional practices. The case studies included classes in world geography, U.S. history, and American government\/civics. In these case studies, 3D modeling and printing were used as part of the study of the following required curriculum topics: Oil and water in the countries and economies of Central and South Asia; interactions between native people and European settlers in colonial America; use of memorials and memory in building civic understandings; and events leading to the American Revolution.<\/p>\n
These case studies offer classroom-based examples of how 3D technology can be used in history\/social studies teaching. None of the participants\u2014teachers or students\u2014had experience with 3D modeling or 3D printing before the study, so their reactions were unfettered by past experience. Although the 3D activities were of short duration (i.e., parts of 2- to 3-weeklong instructional units) they offer lessons and insights for classroom teachers and teacher educators using this new technology in their schools and teacher preparation programs.<\/p>\n
Three-dimensional printers are machines that construct physical objects from 3D digital content (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015). To create a physical 3D model, a teacher or student must first design, import, or modify a digital model using 3D modeling software, such as Tinkercad, SketchUp, or Autodesk 123D. Online repositories provide access to free 3D models (e.g., Thingiverse, National Institute of Health 3D Print Exchange, and Smithsonian X 3D) that can be printed or modified by anyone. These online repositories are fueling the adoption of 3D printing (Johnson et al., 2015).<\/p>\n
Once a digital 3D model has been created, it must be put into a slicing software, such as Cura, to be prepared for printing. The slicing software is used to calibrate the 3D printer settings (e.g., set the temperature and extrusion speed) and define the parameters for printing the object (e.g., fill size, wall thickness, and size of the object).<\/p>\n
When the 3D digital model is ready to be printed, the user must connect the printer to the computer and then select the print feature within the slicing software. Most consumer-based 3D printers work by heating plastic (PLA or ABS) filament up to a certain temperature and then depositing the filament layer-by-layer on the print bed or plate. Thus, 3D printing is still a relatively slow process. Printing something as small as a penny might take 5\u201310 minutes, while printing a large object like a 6-inch sculpture might take a few hours, depending on the fill (i.e., percent of material used to fill hollow spaces in the model) and print speed.<\/p>\n
Technological advancements and lower purchasing costs are bringing 3D printers to an increasing number of \u00a0K\u201312 schools. Machines that previously cost upwards of $20,000 each a few years ago can be now be purchased for less than $2,000, with budget models available as low as $300. As a result, elementary, middle, and high schools across the country are rushing to purchase 3D printers for computer labs and individual classrooms. MakerBot, a leading manufacturer of 3D printers, set a goal to put 3D technology in every school in the United States (Franzen, 2013).<\/p>\n
Teachers have a complicated relationship with technology in schools. Some history and social studies educators embrace instant access to online resources, while other teachers worry that technology is reducing students\u2019 capacities for in-depth thinking and critical analysis (Hicks, Lee, Berson, Bolick, & Diem, 2014). In general, teachers believe technology will make their teaching more effective, motivate students to learn, promote positive classroom behavior, and teach important real-world skills (Schaffhauser & Nagel, 2016). Teachers mainly use technology, however, for record keeping, grading, professional communication, and delivering academic content through PowerPoint and video (Hartshorne & Waring, 2015; Swan & Hofer, 2008). In many classes, students mostly \u201cuse technology daily for drills and review than for project-based or collaborative assignments\u201d (Rebora, 2016, para. 7). Many teachers say they are less certain that technology will produce higher academic achievement as measured by standardized test scores (Pressey, 2013).<\/p>\n
Even with computers in the classroom, history\/social studies teachers may be reluctant to use 3D technologies, preferring to continue longstanding teaching methods of \u201clecture, whole group discussion, small-group work, reliance on the textbook and worksheets, homework, and tests\u201d (Cuban, 2016). Wiggins (2015) estimated that half of all high school history\/social studies teachers lecture during three quarters of most class periods. New technologies, like 3D printers, can promote more open-ended, student-centered learning experiences. In student-centered settings, \u201cstudents exercise a substantial degree of responsibility for what is taught and how it is learned\u201d (Cuban, 2008, p. 6). Many teachers find it difficult to imagine giving class time to students so they can develop 3D design projects.<\/p>\n
Other reasons history\/social studies teachers may not consider using 3D technologies include a belief that 3D modeling and printing is appropriate only for mathematics and science classes. They do not see how 3D technologies can be directly connected to the study of the past.<\/p>\n
Other educators, noted Collins and Halverson (2009), see new digital technologies making \u201clife more difficult for teachers\u201d (p. 6). They may feel intimidated trying to learn a new technology or software tool that has little room for error. Like most technology integration efforts in local schools, teachers may not have support or training for using 3D printers in their classrooms. Some are also concerned that their authority in the classroom will be undermined if students know more about a technology than the teacher.<\/p>\n
Finally, the overall process of 3D manufacturing has a steep learning curve (Oropallo & Piegl, 2016). Creating a digital object using a 3D modeling tool (e.g., Tinkercad, SketchUp, or Maya) is a challenging task, and, as Oropallo and Piegl noted, \u201cThe CAD software that is currently in use for 3D printing was not designed with 3D printing in mind\u201d (p. 137). They identified 10 challenges related to 3D printing, including shape optimization, design for 3D printing, pre- and postprocessing, printing methodologies, error control, and hardware and maintenance issues.<\/p>\n
Because consumer-based 3D printers are still in the early stages of development, users often face a variety of challenges, with the most time-consuming one being failed prints. Prints fail if they are not designed correctly or if the 3D printer has a glitch during the printing process. Even though 3D printers can offer seemingly unlimited possibilities for teachers, the steep learning curve and high failed print rate might dissuade teachers who are already strapped for time for learning and teaching.<\/p>\n
3D printing is directly connected with two other emerging educational concepts: makerspaces and design-based thinking. A makerspace has been defined as \u201ccreative, DIY [do it yourself] spaces where people can gather to create, invent, and learn\u201d (Kroski, 2013, para. 1). Design-based learning (DBL) is an open-ended process of trial and error, innovation, and iteration (Doppelt, Mehalik, Schunn, Silk, & Krysinski, 2008). Makerspaces and DBL activities are meant to encourage student-driven learning through exploration and the construction of artifacts. These activities help students develop creative thinking, inquiry learning, and problem-solving skills.<\/p>\n
Learning experientially has long been a goal of progressive educators. More than a century ago John Dewey (1916) urged teachers to \u201cgive the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results\u201d (p. 154). Writing at the beginning of the late 20th century\u2019s computer revolution, Seymour Papert told teachers to shift their lessons from \u201cinstructionism\u201d to \u201cconstructionism\u201d (Harel & Papert, 1991, para. 17). According to Harel and Papert, \u201cconstructionism boils down to demanding that everything be understood by being constructed\u201d (para. 3). That is, learning is a process of making and constructing knowledge, rather than ofreceiving information. Makerspaces and design-based thinking extend Dewey\u2019s and Papert\u2019s visions to schools, where students \u201cparticipate actively in their own learning, with the teacher taking the role of a partner, a guiding influence, in the process\u201d (Fleming, 2015, p. 3).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n In its Horizon Report: 2015 K\u201312 Edition<\/em>, The New Media Consortium framed the introduction of 3D modeling and printing in schools as an integral part of the growing learning-by-doing movement, where students explore academic material \u201cthrough the act of creation rather than the consumption of content\u201d (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 14). The possibilities are limitless for 3D modeling and printing, they claimed, which enables exploratory and discovery learning in every subject field (p. 40).<\/p>\n The report also said that 3D printing can \u201chelp students visualize graphs and mathematical models\u201d and \u201cbetter understand geological formations at scale\u201d (Johnson et al., 2015, pp. 40-41). It offered few tangible examples, however, of how this technology was being used in history\/social studies teaching.<\/p>\n Given that incorporating 3D modeling and printing into schools can offer new learning experiences that might redefine history\/social studies classrooms, we sought to examine how history\/social studies teachers adopted this emerging technology into their lessons. The following research questions guided our study:<\/p>\n We examined data from an initial study in which 13 in-service teachers from different disciplines, grade levels, and schools partnered with 10 preservice teachers to learn how to integrate 3D printing and modeling into their classrooms. The overall goal of the project was to document the experiences of teachers and students as they implemented their first 3D instructional activities.<\/p>\n At the beginning of this project, the 23 teachers participated in two full-day Saturday workshops where they (a) received an overview of 3D printing and modeling, and (b) started to conceptualize ideas for curriculum projects. The workshops were organized so that participants could experience the design thinking and creation processes that are fundamental components of 3D printing and modeling.<\/p>\n In the first workshop, participants brainstormed curricular and instructional uses of 3D models, engaged in an open-ended makerspace activity where they constructed physical objects, and received an introduction to Tinkercad, a 3D modeling software program. In the second workshop, the teachers worked more extensively with 3D modeling techniques by testing out one of the participants\u2019 lesson plan ideas.<\/p>\n The participants used a variety of hands-on design tools, such as building blocks, toothpicks, tape, paper, and Play-Doh, to create a physical version of a Native American dwelling. They recorded the steps of their design process and then used those steps to guide their design of a 3D digital model in Tinkercad. Then, the preservice\/in-service teacher teams collaboratively brainstormed ideas for their own 3D printing lesson plans, which they shared with other members of the group to get feedback about how to integrate design technology in lesson plans across multiple subject areas.<\/p>\n Nine participants focused on history\/social studies curriculum topics. Three of these participants were preservice teachers who were enrolled in a teacher education program. Three participants were in-service history\/social studies teachers who worked in middle schools located in suburban communities. The remaining three participants were in-service special-subjects teachers\u2014one was a technology teacher, one was a school librarian, and one was an art teacher.<\/p>\n The in-service participants\u2019 years of teaching experience ranged from less than 1 to 18 years, with an average of 9.5 years. All of the participants reported a willingness to try out new technologies in a classroom setting, but none had used 3D modeling and printing prior to this study. Two of the teachers (the art teacher and a middle school history\/social studies teacher), who worked in the same school, reported that they had access to a 3D printer in their school.<\/p>\n Multiple sets of data were collected throughout the yearlong research study.\u00a0At the beginning of the first workshop, the participants filled out a prestudy survey about their 3D printing knowledge, skills, attitudes, and ideas (e.g., \u201cDo you believe that 3D printers are useful instructional tools? Why or why not?\u201d and \u201cWhat curriculum topics or content standards do you think 3D printing might especially support and enhance?\u201d). We collected observational data during the workshops and encouraged participants to fill out postworkshop surveys to explore how teachers learned to incorporate 3D printing and modeling into their lessons.<\/p>\n We collected observational data as participants implemented the 3D printing lessons in their classrooms and then followed up with 30- to 60-minute interviews with each of the participants. During the interviews, participants were asked to describe, reflect upon, and evaluate their 3D printing lesson. They were asked to share what they learned, what challenges they faced, and what advice they could give to other teachers who might be interested in using 3D printers in their classrooms.<\/p>\n We conducted focus groups for students from two of the history\/social studies classrooms (i.e., Water Conservation Technologies and American Revolution Board Game). The other two projects took place at the end of the school year, and we were unable to conduct focus groups with students in those projects due to timing.<\/p>\n We conducted a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the data to identify similarities and patterns across the datasets. We reviewed the data separately and recorded our initial impressions (Salda\u00f1a, 2015). Then, we met to discuss our initial impressions and identify common themes. We reviewed the data again and collaboratively identified seven important lessons and insights for educators who are interested in using 3D printers in history\/social studies classrooms.<\/p>\n Following the workshops, each teacher team developed a curriculum project connecting 3D printing to required learning standards in their school curriculum. The four middle school teacher teams designed unique lessons that covered different curriculum standards for eighth grade U.S. history (Table 1). Each project is detailed in the following section.<\/p>\n Table 1<\/strong> <\/p>\n A seventh-grade preservice\/in-service teacher team incorporated 3D modeling and printing into their water resources unit. The unit focused on access to and use of oil and water in Central and South Asia. Throughout the unit, 73 middle school students in four separate classes explored issues such as human impact on water, access to clean water, water footprint, climate, and water conservation.<\/p>\n At the end of the unit for this school, students traditionally showcased their understanding of the topic by creating a nonfiction picture book. However, when one of the students asked whether the leftover water from washing hands could be used to fill the toilet, the in-service teacher identified an opportunity for incorporating 3D printing. The in-service teacher revised the lesson to allow students to have a choice for their final assessment: (a) Design a nonfiction picture book or (b) create a 3D model related to water conservation. A total of 15 students, working alone or in groups, designed 3D models as their final unit project.<\/p>\n The students were encouraged to sketch their design ideas on paper using multiple perspectives before trying to create a 3D digital model using Tinkercad. One of the students said that each member of her group went home, sketched ideas for a model, and then came together during class the next day to select a design.<\/p>\n Once the design was selected, this student described how she and her group members drew the design from different perspectives to help with the development of a 3D model and then worked in Tinkercad to create the 3D digital model. While some students followed this step-by-step design process, others decided to \u201cwing it,\u201d jumping right into the construction of a 3D model in Tinkercad. However, upon reflection of the design process, those who did not create drawings with multiple perspectives or use the Tinkercad tutorials said that they struggled much more than the other students.<\/p>\n Although one student reported that using Tinkercad was easy because he watched tutorial videos at home, the rest of the students found the 3D modeling program to be challenging. Designing a 3D digital model for printing requires using a 2D interface (i.e., a computer or smart device) to construct a 3D digital object. Some students said that navigating a 3D space using a computer keyboard or mouse was hard. Others said that the Tinkercad tutorials did not provide them with enough information to construct their detailed designs.<\/p>\n The in-service teacher requested support from our project team. We were able to recruit college students from a tutoring course to help the middle school students create their designs in Tinkercad. Although the students found Tinkercad challenging and frustrating, all of them were able to build a printable 3D model with the assistance of the tutors.<\/p>\n The students\u2019 designs focused on ways to use water more efficiently and less wastefully, including the desalination of sea water for human use and the design of more effective water filtration systems (Figure 1). The preservice teacher said, \u201cI was really impressed by what they designed and how well they were [crafted] and how into it they were. They were like, \u2018This is really cool. I\u2019ve never done something like this.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n
Methods<\/h2>\n
Participants<\/h3>\n
Data Collection<\/h3>\n
3D Printing Projects in Middle School Classrooms<\/h2>\n
\n3D Printing Projects<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Participants<\/strong><\/td>\n Project<\/strong><\/td>\n Grade Level and Topic<\/strong><\/td>\n Curriculum Connection<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n In-service teacher and preservice teacher<\/td>\n Water Conservation Technologies<\/td>\n 8th-grade World Geography<\/td>\n Oil and water in the countries and economies of Central and South Asia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n In-service technology teacher, school librarian, and preservice teacher<\/td>\n Native American Dwellings<\/td>\n 8th-grade U.S. History<\/td>\n Interactions between native people and European settlers in Colonial America<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n In-service teacher and art teacher<\/td>\n Hidden Histories & Missing Monuments<\/td>\n 8th-grade American Government & Civics<\/td>\n Use of memorials and memory in building civic understandings<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n In-service teacher and preservice teacher<\/td>\n American Revolution Board Game<\/td>\n 8th-grade U.S. History<\/td>\n Events leading to the American Revolution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Project 1: Water Conservation Technologies<\/h3>\n