For several months, Brittany and I have envisioned our final project to be structured around a workshop series with an open access online repository, via GitHub, to a multitude of lessons and a community of supports. We soon found our studies extending beyond just 3D printing in the classroom, but rather how to support teachers who are learning about 3D printing for the first time. Our project expanded to include exploring studies on what considerations and strategies contribute to effective educational technology professional development.

One article, that really stood out to us was “The impact of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, self‑efficacy, and technology value beliefs on 3D printing integration in K‑12 science classroom” by Li Cheng, Pavlo D. Antoneko, and Albert D. Ritzhaupt. The article goes into depth as to the how a teacher’s belief system, encapsulated by pedagogy, self-efficacy, and the value of technology, impacts how one would integrate 3D printing into their practice. In this study, 26 American K-12 teachers were surveyed and given open-ended questions regarding their thoughts about 3D printing integration in the classroom, their perceived barriers to entry, and their experiences with 3D printing in their practice. The frameworks used in this study were the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) frameworks. The TPACK framework tackled how the precarious balance of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge played a role in a teacher’s confidence in 3D printing adaption and classroom use (Cheng et al., 2024). The TIM framework was presented as a 5-category spectrum in which teachers integrated technology into their lessons.

The 5 categories were:

  1. Entry – teachers have access to the technology, but students do not.
  2. Adoption – students have limited access for technical tasks only
  3. Adaptation – teachers have control of technology usage, but students choose its best use
  4. Infusion – teacher facilitates a more student-centered approach with full access to technology
  5. Transformation – teacher is passive, and students are using technology to achieve learning objectives that would be impossible without its use (Cheng et al., 2024).
Technology Integration in Education created, narrated, and uploaded by Tina Parsadanov

The article noted that, currently, there is a significant lack of research looking at educational applications of 3D printing at the K-12 level. With this lack of research on how teachers might use a 3D printer in their class, the survey conducted aimed to fill the gaps in understanding. The results illuminated that, while there was interest in using a 3D printer in their classrooms, the lack of training, background knowledge, resources, and immediate connections to curriculum were the leading reasons as to why many were hesitant to bring a 3D printer into their practice (Cheng et al., 2024). At this point, there became a clear distinction between what Cheng et al (2004) described as “first-order” and “second-order” barriers. First-order barriers were described as “external to teachers and are related to educational resources (including hardware and software), teacher training, and instructional support”, while second-order barriers were to “include teachers’ self-efficacy on technology integration, beliefs about how students learn, and perceived value of technology for teaching and learning” (Cheng et al., 2024). Teachers with a low self-efficacy for the technical side of learning 3D printing were less likely to integrate it into their practice. The article raised a need for school districts and school administrators to remove as many of the first-order barriers by investing in access to devices, more professional development, time to plan with peers, and increased resources readily available to teachers and students. This, in turn, would remove the second-order barriers where teachers could achieve personal goals on their professional learning journey and increase their self-efficacy on using 3D printers in their classroom regardless of faculty (Cheng et al., 2024).

Designing effective educational technology professional development has been on the forefront of my mind, because I have recently volunteered to host my first workshop open to teacher colleagues outside of my immediate school community. I am working alongside a member of the district technology team to illustrate multiple ways in which teachers can utilize the online platform, SeeSaw, to document student learning, communicate with families, and create a safe online space for students. When I thought about all the technology-based professional development I have done in the past, I could pinpoint exactly which sessions inspired me to try something new in my classroom, and which sessions left me with confusion or disappointment. It was difficult to pull apart what exactly was encouraging me to embrace some platforms/programs, while holding me back from adopting others. My goal when designing my SeeSaw workshop was to have my colleagues confidently walk away with at least one thing they can implement into their practice. This aligns with Cheng et al’s article where increasing a teacher’s self-efficacy when using new technology involves achieving small goals that hold significance in their practice. As I examine my own workshop through the lens of the article, the distinction between the first and second order barriers really resonated with me. Oftentimes what is holding me and my peers back from utilizing new technology can be simply not having the finds to purchase, or it could be our attitude toward the value of the technology. As I reflect inward on my upcoming workshop, I am looking at what barriers I am trying to remove for teachers. Providing exploration time, log-in support, and opportunities for consultation with our SeeSaw ambassadors removes some first-order barriers with regards to accessing the software. In terms of second-order barriers, having the small goals of logging in and finding one activity in the SeeSaw resource library that they would be interested in using removes the hesitations of “I can’t” and replaces them with “I can”. Ideally, all of the teachers at the workshop would also be able to directly connect with one of the district ambassadors, or my presentation partner on the district tech team for any additional support after the session to promote a learning community.

As Brittany and I have been developing our final project, our topic of 3D printing in elementary seemed even more relevant. Our goal is to build an Open Educational Resource (OER) on 3D printing with the purpose of supporting teachers who have little to no 3D printing experience, seeking support in their learning journey, and/or looking for resources to use in their classrooms. Our inspiration was the problem that like Cheng et al. (2024) also expressed that there was a lack of 3D printing training for teachers at the K-12 level, especially elementary. We noticed that all the training offered in our local areas were aimed at secondary school teachers. We hope that our OER simply being available for anyone to access will eliminate some of the first-order barriers tied to a lack of training and resources. The inclusion of several short ready-to-go lessons teachers can use in their classes were designed with second-order barriers in mind, where these lessons are short and attainable benchmarks for success. Brittany and I hope that this will increase general teacher self-efficacy regardless of their tech experience. Our personal high self-efficacy when it comes to integrating technology often works in tandem with our frequent searches for in-person and online communities to support our learning. This idea that teachers need a social space for them to communicate with peers on their own learning journey brought us to the idea of “Communities of Practice”, first presented by Etienne Wenger. Our next steps are to fully explore the idea of what a community of practice looks like and how we can create one within the confines of our OER. We are also very interested in some of Cheng et al’s other writings, such as “Exploring the influence of teacher’s beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation” (2020) where we can further delve into self-efficacy and how it relates specifically to STEM and STEAM learning.

References

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2024). The impact of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, self-efficacy, and technology value beliefs on 3D printing integration in K-12 science classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(1), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10276-3