See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363469906

Exploring the use of 3D printing in mathematics education: A scoping review

Preprint · September 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34113.63843

CITATIONS READS

0 399

1 author:

Tsz Kit Ng
University of Hong Kong
58 PUBLICATIONS 880 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tsz Kit Ng on 11 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Exploring the use of 3D printing in mathematics education: A scoping review

Davy Tsz Kit Ng1, Tsui Ming Fung2, Yuen Manwai2

University of Hong Kong1, The Education University of Hong Kong2

Please cite as: Ng, D.T.K., Tsui, M.F., & Yuen, M. (2022, accepted). Exploring the use of 3D

printing in mathematics education: A scoping review. Asian Journal for Mathematics Education.

Abstract

Thanks to the fourth industrial revolution, 3D printing has become a fast-emerging technology that is

widely applied across industries. In mathematics education, 3D printing is an innovative way to

visualize mathematics concepts (e.g., geometry, calculus) that enables students to develop

mathematical and design thinking, as well as digital skills and mindsets. Through digital maker

education, students can apply multidisciplinary knowledge to build prototypes and create 3D objects

that bring many new opportunities in mathematics formal/informal learning. However, to our

knowledge, there has no existing review summarizing the existing evidence of how 3D printing has

been applied in mathematics education. As such, this review aims to give a synthesis of the up-to-

date literature in the burgeoning topic of using 3D printing in mathematics education. A systematic

review was conducted to examine the thematic and content analysis of 30 empirical papers from

2015 to 2022. The review aims to evaluate and analyze different types of participants,

methodological approaches, challenges, pedagogies and technologies used in the selected studies.

Although 3D printing has a bright prospect to revolutionize mathematics education, there are still

many challenges such as hardware and software optimization, processing, formatting, printing and

maintenance issues. After all, a set of recommendations were listed to guide future researchers and

educators to use 3D printing effectively in mathematics education.

Keywords. 3D printing, mathematics education, geometry, STEAM education, computer-aided

design, maker movement

 2
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS

1. Introduction

Thanks to the fourth industrial revolution and maker movement, 3D printing has become a fast-

emerging technology that is widely used across industries such as manufacturing, mechanical

engineering, aerospace, science and education (Dougherty, 2012; Dizon et al., 2018; Shahrubudin et

al., 2019; Tay et al., 2017). This technology is officially known as an additive manufacturing process

that turns model files into physical objects through computer-aided design (CAD) (Gao et al., 2015;

Tay et al., 2017). It enables designers to print and build up an artifact layer by layer using raw

materials such as plastic, cement and steel (Campbell et al., 2011; Kietzmann et al., 2015). With the

popularity of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEAM) education, reviews

have reported the potential of using 3D printing in science and engineering education that foster

students’ creativity, collaboration, problem-solving, higher order thinking skills, and impact their

interests, engagements, beliefs and careers towards STEM learning (e.g., Cheng et al., 2021; Hansen

et al., 2020; Hsu & Fang, 2019; Schlegel et al., 2019). Students could apply multidisciplinary

knowledge to build prototypes and create 3D objects that introduce students to scientific,

technological and industrial skills that bring them new learning opportunities across subjects and

educational settings (Ford & Minshall, 2019). In recent years, research has documented the impacts

of 3D printing on mathematics education which was not possible in the past. First, 3D printing helps

students visualize concepts and proofs (e.g., geometry, calculus, area/volume) that enables them to

develop mathematical, abstract and spatial thinking (e.g., Dilling & Witzke, 2020; Ng & Ye, 2022).

For example, Ng and Ferrara (2020) have reported how primary students used 3D printing pens to

create their own prisms and pyramids to learn the geometric properties and cross-sections. Dilling
 3
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
and Witzke (2020) conducted an empirical study to engage students to derive concepts about

functions and calculus in middle school. Furthermore, as creativity is the essence of mathematics, 3D

printing enables students’ creative exploration and design (e.g., Chien & Chu, 2017; Ng, 2017). Ng

(2017) asked students to design a keychain with their names on it and have it printed in 3D, and they

also needed to consider the time and cost of printing in a 3D Keychain Project. Beyond this snapshot,

other research reflected that 3D printing could aid students’ spatial and design thinking (Herrera et

al., 2019), and facilitate their creativity and critical problem-solving (Song, 2019). We can see that

3D printing not only scaffold students’ mathematical understandings, it is also a powerful tool to

stimulate students’ creativity and exploration to design 3D objects using mathematical concepts that

add an “A” (arts and design) in STEM education (e.g., Ng & Ferrare, 2020; Song, 2019).

However, to our knowledge, there are no existing reviews summarizing how 3D printing is

incorporated in mathematics education. Of this interest, this review contributes to setting an agenda

for future conversations on how to build theoretical and pedagogical foundations of using 3D

printing in mathematical learning environments through evaluation and synthesis of the existing

literature. This review gives an overview of the current trends in empirical research of 3D printing in

mathematics education. It provides a foundation for exploring the mathematical research pathways of

3D printing. Moreover, the review provided recommendations for future studies and prescribed a set

of obstacles and hurdles to facilitate 3D printing design implementation. The research questions are

identified as follows:

1. What pedagogies, learning contents and technologies have been identified in 3D printing

research in mathematics education?

2. What methodological approaches have been used in 3D printing research in mathematics

education?

3. What is the potential of implementing 3D printing in mathematics education?

4. What are the underlying challenges used in 3D printing research in mathematics education?
 4
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
5. How do teachers use 3D pens for mathematics teaching/learning?

6. What are the theoretical frameworks (or theories) to connect 3D printing and mathematics

education?

7. What are the unexplored future research areas in 3D printing research in mathematics

education?

2. Methods

2.1 Research design

An analysis of 30 refereed journal articles from 2015 and 2021 was conducted in order to

compile the empirical evidence for this review. The first article was found in 2015. We implemented

a content and thematic analysis to synthesize the data found in the selected studies into themes (e.g.,

methodological approaches, challenges, learning outcomes) according to the research questions. This

systematic method is used to assess research trends in the field of educational technology across

review articles (e.g., Ng et al., 2021; Zainuddin et al., 2020). Between 2015 and 2021, the review

looked at the overall trends of 3D printing research in mathematics education (e.g., the most common

types of tools/platforms and pedagogies used).

2.2 The inclusion and exclusion criteria of research studies

To guarantee the generality of the findings and eliminate biases in the study selection, the

current study employed rigorous and detailed criteria and methodologies. Only studies that satisfied

the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were considered in the analyses:

1. The research should be focused on 3D printing in mathematics education while 3D printing

on pure science/technology/engineering or other topics without mathematical contexts should

be excluded.

2. The research should be empirical articles or conference papers published in the journals

indexed by the aforementioned databases while review research needs to be excluded.

3. The research should be written in English while other languages should be excluded.
 5
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
4. Editorials and book chapters should be excluded due to the lack of peer review.

2.3 Study selection

To avoid biases and discrepancy during the selection and analysis process, the first and

second authors resolved the disagreements to reach a final decision through discussion. The literature

first search yielded 92 studies while 37 articles from WoS and 55 articles from Scopus as of 31

March 2022. Figure 1 displays the article selection process using a PRISMA flow chart. Forty

articles were excluded since they are duplicates and do not satisfy the selection criteria. Four articles

were further excluded since they could not be accessed. In the next step, 48 full-text articles in total

were synthesized and reviewed. There were three studies excluded because they are review articles

while another ten articles were also excluded since they are technical papers and do not focus on

educational implications. Six studies were also excluded since they focus on science, technology and

engineering education without talking about mathematical contexts. After the selection, there were

30 eligible articles included for further synthesis. Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA flowchart for the

included studies.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the included studies

 6
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS

2.4 Categorizing, coding and synthesis

All of the selected studies were categorized and documented according to the research

questions:

1. Background information of the studies: countries of the author, sample size of the research, the

research methods (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, mixed Methods), background of the participants

(i.e., primary, secondary, university educational levels), data collection methods (i.e.,

questionnaires/surveys, interviews/ focus group, experimental test/assessments, observations, and

documents analysis), length of the studies, and formats of the learning (formal vs informal).

2. Pedagogies (i.e., problem/project-based learning, collaborative learning, maker/design-based

learning), learning contents and technologies (i.e., tools/ platforms) used in the research.

3. Learning outcomes (i.e., affective, behavioral, cognitive learning).

4. Challenges of using 3D printing identified in the research.

5. Differences between using 3D printers and 3D pens in mathematics education.

 7
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
6. Theoretical or conceptual framework mentioned in the selected research.

7. Future research areas of using 3D printing in mathematics education.

After settling the coding theme, the first and second author studied the content in the selected

studies, identified and extracted the similar concepts during the content and thematic analysis

(Vaismoradi et al., 2013). The data were then recorded and categorized under the coding schemes

using the above frame. To show an excellent inter-rater reliability between coders, Cohen’s kappa

coefficient (0.85) was identified to measure inter-rater reliability of the categorical items (Hallgren,

2012). The findings were descriptively analyzed and summarized in terms of frequency and

percentages in each research question. After that, the findings were presented in charts and tables for

future discussion.

3. Results and discussion

Before examining the research questions, the background information (i.e., publication years,

countries, participants' levels of education, formats of learning) of the 30 selected studies is first

described in Table 1. After that, the results will be discussed followed by the five research questions.

Table 1. Frequency (n, Percentage) of the background information of the selected articles

Variables Categories n Percentage

Publication years 2015 2 6.7%

2017 3 10.0%
2018 4 13.3%
2019 3 10.0%
2020 4 13.3%
2021 12 40.0%
2022 2 6.7%

Countries USA 7 23.3%

Hong Kong 5 16.7%
Taiwan 3 10.0%
Austria 2 6.7%
Korea 2 6.7%
China 2 6.7%
Australia 1 3.3%
Canada 1 3.3%
 8
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Ghana 1 3.3%
Israel 1 3.3%
Mexico 1 3.3%
Poland 1 3.3%
Romania 1 3.3%
UK 1 3.3%
Greece 1 3.3%

Participants' levels of education Primary school 6 20.0%

* Secondary school 11 36.7%
High school/ undergraduate 9 30.0%
Teacher 6 20.0%

Formats of learning Formal 21 70.0%

Informal 2 6.67%
Not specified 7 23.3%
* Articles could be conducted across levels of education.

Figure 2. The trend of 3D printing research in mathematics education during 2015 - 2022

Regarding the years of publication, it is observed that the overall trend of using 3D printing

in mathematics education started to increase in 2020 (see Figure 2). The statistical presentations for

the year of 2022 in Table 1 and Figure 2 are only part of the year until 31 March, rather than the
 9
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
whole year.

Before 2020, there are two to four papers on average which means that 3D printing was not

very popular at that time. However, there is a triple growth from 2020 (4) to 2021 (12). It is believed

that there will be significantly more researchers studying how to incorporate 3D printing in

mathematics education in the coming years. Moreover, based on the data about the publication

countries/regions, 3D printing was widely applied in mathematics education across the world. The

top three countries that study in this field are USA (7), Hong Kong (5), and Taiwan (3).

Researchers conducted studies across different education levels. In comparison, most of the

articles studied the secondary school settings (11), followed by primary schools (6) and high school/

undergraduate level (7). This showed that 3D printing can be applied to visualize mathematical

concepts and proofs from primary school to high education level. At the same time, it is also

important to understand how to prepare primary/secondary teachers (6) to design their 3D printing

lessons and understand their feedback and perceptions. There are some articles conducted across two

different levels of education such as primary school and secondary school (Cheng at al., 2021), as

well as secondary school and college students (Chien & Chu, 2017). There was a wide range of

sample size in the articles, varying from 4 to 1455 participants.

In addition, it is found that most of the studies applied 3D printing in a formal curriculum

setting (21) rather than in an informal way (2). It is observed that most studies have tried to

incorporate 3D printing in their mathematics curriculum and regular lessons instead of engaging

students in after-school projects. For example, Ng and Ferrara (2019) used a diffractive analysis to

capture the students’ learning behavior and body-material interactions in their learning tasks using

3D printing pens during the regular lessons. Few studies engaged students in informal activities such

as STEM camp (Anand & Dogan, 2022) and experiments/ projects (Chiriacescu et al., 2020).

3.1 Pedagogies, learning contents and technologies

3.1.1 Pedagogies
 10
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Three major types of pedagogies were applied in 3D printing studies. The three most

common pedagogy used in studies is project/problem-based learning (19), followed by

maker/design-based learning (11) and collaborative learning (10) (see Table 2).

Project/problem-based learning. Nearly two-third of the studies provide learners with a

problem/project-based interactive setting that empowers students to conduct research, integrate

authentic theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop feasible solutions for

problems (Dabbagh & Dass, 2013). For example, Lin et al. (2021) found that project-based learning

could effectively develop a deeper understanding of students' interest in STEAM careers and

students could gain benefits from using 3D printing to solve real-life problems. Moreover,

researchers stressed the importance of 3D printing processing, modeling and building in STEAM

projects that encourages students to reflect on and revise their design ideas and prototypes. Another

study conducted by Herrera et al. (2019) used 3D printing in mathematical modeling projects to

enhance their “mathematical spatial visualization” (a set of skill sets including mathematics spatial

skills, communication, graphic and written representations, and using mathematical language) among

442 students. Ng and Ferrara (2019) proposed a notion of ‘learning as Making’ that fits well with this

transdisciplinary approach in the context of STEAM education in which students create digital

artifacts to solve real-world problems and projects.

Collaborative learning. Another trend identified among the selected articles was the

popularity of collaborative learning activities that involved project/problem-based learning. We

found that one third of the articles explored the use of collaborative instruction designs in project-

based learning approaches. Lin et al. (2021) encouraged students to collaborate, communicate, make

decisions, and pursue creative ideas, and developed their imagination and career interest through a

STEAM project using 3D printing. Another study conducted by Anand and Dogan (2021) who

engaged students in the collaborative process of ‘learning by doing’ in a STEM camp and connected

their understanding to the world they live in in real-world settings. This could enable learners to
 11
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
collaborate and engage in dialogues. Herrera et al. (2019) Several skills such as logical thinking or

collaborative work are present, but we selected the problem-solving skill as part of this research

because of its close connection to spatial skills. This approach provides students with opportunities

to build their 3D models and products in teams, to diagram, visualize and explore the target

mathematical ideas, and apply what they have learnt and co-construct their understandings (Ng &

Chan, 2019).

Maker/design-based learning. The maker movement is a growing trend over the last five

years that encourages students form creative communities where ideas, designs and processes can be

shared (Dougherty, 2012; Leung et al., 2021; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Lin et al., 2020).

Researchers have shown its success in mathematics education that elementary students could

improve and assess mathematics and geometry through 3D printing (Lin et al., 2021). In our review,

Chien and Chu (2018) engaged 132 high school students to highlight students’ creativity, forecast

accuracy, race outcomes, and learning outcomes. Several studies discussed the potential impact on

fostering a learning-by-doing constructionist approach (e.g., Ng & Chan, 2021; Ng & Ferrara, 2020;

Song, 2019). Song (2019) focused on a set of design skill sets (e.g., artistic/design sense, problem-

solving skills, accuracy in engineering, communicating ideas using effective visual presentation

methods, collaborative learning) that teachers should emphasize in arts and design curriculum. Other

studies also aligned with this that 3D printing could successfully add the “A” into STEM education

through architecture and culture projects (Bedewy et al., 2021a) and race car design (Chien & Chu,

2018). As such, the maker and design-based learning environments could effectively promote

students’ STEAM-related learning outcomes.

Table 2. Pedagogies applied in the selected studies

Pedagogies Definition/Explanation n Sample studies

 12
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Project/problem- Problem-based learning is the process of 19 Dickson at al. (2021); Lin et

based learning guiding students through the setting of al. (2021); Ng et al. (2020).

their own learning objectives. Students

could build knowledge, explore and

create solutions by themselves/ in

groups (Hsu, Chang & Hung, 2018).

Maker/design- Maker/design-based learning is a 11 Ng & Chan (2021); Cairns,

based learning pedagogical approach where students Curtis et al. (2018); Song

could pose open-ended problems and (2019).

opportunities to solve authentic

problems through design process and

principles (Bower et al., 2018).

Collaborative Learning approaches involving joint 10 Cheng et al. (2021);

learning intellectual effort by learner groups to Chiriacescu et al. (2020);

solve problems, complete tasks or create Lin et al. (2021); Perez et

products (Chu et al., 2021). al. (2015).

3.1.2 Learning contents

In our selected studies, most of the studies (15) considered 3D printing as tools to develop

geometry concepts (e.g., Asempapa & Love, 2021; Dickson at al., 2021; Ng et al., 2020). For

example, Huleihi (2017) applied 3D printing to discuss the volume, lateral area and surface area of

cube, rectangular prism and cylinder. Ng and Ferrara (2019) engaged students in inquiry-based

learning in which students used 3D printing pens to express and learn the properties of prisms and
 13
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
the cross-sections of 3D solids. Likewise, Choo, Park and Nelson (2021) designed a 3D printing

instruction to examine how students learn spatial thinking skills, total surface area and volume of 3D

models. Through designing 3D models, prototypes and drawing, students could scaffold their

geometric understandings and use 3D printing to express ideas, create solutions and solve authentic

problems (e.g., Ng & Chan, 2021; Chiriacescu et al., 2020; Dickson at al., 2021).

In addition, seven other studies developed students’ other mathematical concepts including

multivariable calculus (Herrera et al., 2019; Paul, 2018), matrix and vector (Awrejcewicz et l., 2021),

polynomial (Bedewy et al., 2021a), and engineering-related topics (e.g., principles behind 3D

printing) (Anastasiou et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2018; Perez et al., 2016). These four studies were

conducted at the higher education level. We can see that 3D printing is more suitable to visualize

geometric concepts and proofs in primary/secondary levels; however, it has potential to enable

university students to explore and learn more advanced mathematics and build graph functions

through 3D modeling and printing.

Furthermore, there were five studies that didn't explicitly state which mathematics concepts

students have learnt but they measured mathematics interest, motivation and abilities. For example,

Cheng at al. (2020) examined how the 3D printing activity could increase students’ mathematics

motivation and self-efficacy after a STEAM project. Another study conducted by Lin et al. (2021)

asked students to design and make earthquake-resistant structures that encouraged students to apply

their mathematical knowledge to their designs, thus enhancing their attitudes towards mathematics.

Moreover, Chien and Chu (2017) enabled students to design a race car in groups and facilitated high

school students to incorporate the mathematical theories in their design. These examples emphasized

that mathematics was an important part of a comprehensive STEAM program. Instead of learning

and visualizing mathematical concepts, students apply mathematics to design solutions, artifacts and

models to solve authentic problems. We can see that mathematics can also play an important role in

STEAM education for real-world problem-solving, and these studies consider 3D printing as one of
 14
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
the 21st century technological skills for their future career and studies.

3.1.3 Technologies

This section documented the essential software equipment that educators need to prepare

their 3D printing mathematics lessons. The software applied in the studies were summarized in Table

3. This summary could allow educators to know what types of technologies needed for investments

to further motivate and facilitate students’ mathematics learning.

In terms of hardware, studies reported the use of different models of 3D printers to print

prototypes (e.g., UP!Plus, Chiriacescu et al., 2020; 3D printed colorimeter, Porter, 2017; 3D printing

pens, Ng & Chan, 2021). Educators might consider factors when choosing 3D printers such as size of

the print bed, automatic calibrations, build volume, user-friendliness of the software, types of

filaments and costs, as well as safety concerns (e.g., Evans, 2012; Tully & Meloni, 2020). On top of

hardware specification, the following will illustrate the types of software and tools used in the studies

to facilitate 3D printing in mathematics education.

In terms of software and tools, 3D printing required software that would facilitate the

communication between the users and the printer itself. The top three software/ tools were identified

in the studies: Tinkercad (10), SketchUp (8) and 3D printing pens (4). In primary/secondary

education, Tinkercad is frequently used in the studies due to its free and easy-to-use web interface

that equips the young learners to build 3D models and learn solid geometry in schools as an entry

level. Further, the 3D printing pen is another user-friendly tool for children to get into 3D design and

introduce various geometric properties (e.g., Ng & Ye, 2022; Ng et al., 2020). Therefore, educators

should apply user-friendly 3D modeling software and tools to reduce students’ technical difficulties

so that they could build their final products easily. In higher education, students would use specific

software (e.g., SketchUp, SolidWorks, Autodesk) to build finer 3D models for different purposes

such as building products, buildings and cars (e.g., Asempapa & Love, 2021; Chien & Chu, 2017).

The software used could be particular to build models for different disciplines which require teachers
 15
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
and students to obtain more advanced 3D modeling, prototyping and graphics design knowledge,

techniques and skills. As such, challenges were reported in later sections that students met various

technical challenges such as file exchange, 3D model rendering and mapping (e.g, Dickson at al.,

2021).

Moreover, studies used more than one technology to facilitate students’ learning. For

example, students could search for useful ready-made 3D models through online libraries (e.g.,

Stetchfab, TurboSquid) so that they did not need to draw their models from zero (e.g., Anand &

Dogan, 2021). Students could also visualize the 3D models through Geogebra and augmented reality

to further adjust their models before printing their final products (Bedewy et al., 2021a). All these

could provide additional support for students to build their products.

Table 3. 3D printing/modeling related technologies used in the selected studies

Technologies n Sample studies

Tinkercad 10 Asempapa & Love (2021); Dickson at al. (2021); Cheng at

al. (2020); Song (2019); Anand & Dogan (2021); Cairns et

al. (2018); Huleihi (2017)

SketchUp 8 Asempapa & Love (2021); Cairns et al. (2018)

3D printing pens 4 Ng & Ye (2022); Ng et al. (2020)

Autodesk Inventor 4 Awrejcewicz et al. (2021)

Augmented reality 3 Bedewy et al. (2021a, b); Herrera et al. (2019)

Solidworks 2 Chien & Chu (2017); Huleihil (2017)

Geogebra 2 Bedewy et al. (2021a)

 16
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
3.2 Methodological approaches

This section responds to the RQ2 and presents a summary of the methodological approaches

undertaken. The majority of studies used a quantitative approach (12), followed by a qualitative

approach (11) and mixed method approach (7) (see Table 4). In the quantitative studies, researchers

employed a variety of data collection procedures, such as questionnaires, surveys, knowledge/skill

tests and assessments. Additionally, the qualitative studies collected data via interviews, focus

groups, observations, and document analysis. The rest of the papers applied a mixed method using

interviews, experimental tests, assessments, focus groups, questionnaires, and surveys. These

assessment methods provided examples of how educators assess students’ interest, motivation,

engagement, knowledge and skill acquisition, as well as student-student and student-material

interaction. Furthermore, data collection methods were summarized in Figure 3. It is identified that

the most common methods are questionnaires and surveys (12), followed by interviews and focus

groups (8), experimental tests and assessments (8), artifact (8) and documents analysis (1). Students’

learning outcomes in different assessments will be explained in the RQ3.

Table 4. Methods used in 3D printing studies

No. Research Methods Number of articles Studies

1 Quantitative 12 Asempapa & Love (2021), Cheng at al. (2020),

Lin et al. (2021), Ng et al. (2020), Chien & Chu
(2017), Porter (2017), Chiriacescu et al. (2020),
Choo et al. (2021), de Cataldo et al. (2018),
Perez et al. (2015), Cheng et al. (2021), Shen et
al. (2021).

2 Qualitative 11 Ng & Chan (2021), Ng & Ferrara (2019),

Dickson at al. (2021), Cairns et al. (2018),
Awrejcewicz et al. (2021), Bedewy et al.
(2021a), Ng & Tsang (2021), Huleihi (2017),
Wan & Ivy (2021), Paul (2018), Zhou et al.
(2022)

3 Mixed method 7 Herrera et al. (2019), Song (2019), Anand &

Dogan (2021), Lin et al. (2018), Ng & Ye
(2022), Anastasiou et al. (2013), Bedewy et al.
 17
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
(2021b)
Furthermore, it is important to analyze the average intervention duration across the analyzed

articles. Regarding the studies that were conducted within a semester, the majority of intervention

studies took place within two months (on average 7.67 weeks). Two studies were implemented over

a longer period of time, 5 months (i.e., Awrejcewicz et al., 2021; Ng et al., 2020). There are three

longitudinal studies that were undertaken for and over 1 year (Asempapa & Love, 2021), 2 years (Ng

& Ye, 2022), 3 years (Cheng at al., 2021) and 4 years (Herrera, Pérez & Ordóñez, 2019). The length

of intervention is diversified across studies.

Figure 3. Distribution of data collection procedures

3.3 Potential of using 3D printing in mathematics education

This section discusses the potentials of using 3D printing in mathematics education. We

categorized the learning opportunities into three domains: cognitive (i.e., knowledge and digital

skills) and non-cognitive skills.

3.3.1 Cognitive skills

All of the 30 articles measured cognitive outcomes. Cognitive outcomes are split into

knowledge and digital skills. Studies suggest that 3D printing could improve knowledge acquisition
 18
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
and digital skills to facilitate adequate retention of mathematical learning about 3D printing.

In terms of knowledge acquisition, researchers demonstrated a positive cognition gain across

studies. Asempapa and Love (2021) have constructed a pre- and post- survey before and after the 3D

printing activities. Students gained a significant improvement of correct response percentage from

(6%-100%) to (50%-100%). Furthermore, Ng et al. (2020) found that students could use 3D pens to

enhance their geometric understandings (e.g., faces, vertices and edges of prisms/pyramids)

significantly. With 3D printing, students could overcome difficulties about 3D geometry (e.g.,

mental rotation, mental transformation of 3D figures, imagination and abstract thinking) (e.g.,

Huleihil, 2017; Ng et al., 2020). Anastasiou et al. (2013) identified that students could gain the

mathematical principles behind 3D printing (e.g., Fubini theorem) to understand how to print the

objects through layering. Further, this built a connection between art, design and technology that

encourage students to become an active creator (Ng & Ferrara, 2020), and problem-solvers (Cairns et

al., 2018).

In addition, students can reach a higher cognitive level in which students can solve problems,

reflect their learning, and collaborate with others to construct knowledge. For example, Song (2019)

showed that students were able to learn and make progress together with their classmates most of the

time through reflective thinking. Porter (2017) found that students believed 3D printing experience

could enhance students to learn how to work as part of a team (Mean = 4.8/5). Both examples

showed that 3D printing activities require students to collaborate and interact with their classmates in

the lesson. Ng and Ferrara (2020) proposed that Making played a fundamental role in co-

constructing mathematical meanings through students’ body movements and interaction with other

students to manipulate their artifacts using 3D pens.

Regarding digital skills gained, researchers found that 3D printing could enhance students’

digital competencies (e.g., 3D printing, modeling, engineering processes, spatial skills). Herrera et al.

(2019) found that there is a significant difference in the passing rate of skills tests between the group
 19
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
with (84.2%) and without using 3D printing (48.4%) in terms of spatial skills and mathematical

representation. Ng et al. (2020) applied the embodied cognition theory to enable students to use their

hands to touch, move and make reference to construct mathematical meanings and concepts. In this

way, students could learn spatial, abstract and physical manipulation through the body-material

interaction and gesturing (Ng & Ye, 2022). This could promote a long-lasting learning effect to gain

knowledge of properties of 3D objects (e.g., prisms, pyramids) to visualize the geometry and

strengthen hands-on learning (Ng et al., 2020). Compared with the traditional way of viewing 3D

scenes in a 2D screen, the 3D printing environment facilitates a stronger connection between

pedagogical and mathematical dynamics. This showed that 3D printing education could not only

benefit students’ mathematical knowledge, it also enhances their digital skills which could transfer to

other subjects, and encourage them to learn from failures (Dickson at al., 2021; Herrera et al., 2019).

3.3.2 Non-cognitive skills

Eighteen articles measured non-cognitive outcomes. Overall, students reported positive

experiences with 3D printing. Three major categories of non-cognitive learning outcomes were

identified: interest and motivation (thoughts and feelings about 3D printing), satisfaction (how much

students liked 3D printing), and other perceptions (such as usefulness, engagement, appreciation).

For example, Lin et al. (2021) designed an experimental and control group setting to examine the

relationship of 3D printing activities and career interests in mathematics. Another study conducted

by Herrera et al. (2019) stated that 92% of students felt interested and motivated in the 3D modeling

process. Song (2019) showed that the 3D printing activities could stimulate students’ interest in the

art and design course (Mean = 3.25/4).

There were 12 out of 22 articles that have positive course satisfaction after using 3D

technologies during the mathematics education. For example, Cheng et al. (2021) studies on how to

use 3D printing activity, after the activity, students’ mathematics motivation and mathematics self-

efficiency has been increased. Moreover, Song (2019) shows that most of the students stay positive
 20
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
and think the course with 3D printing is valuable to students’ development (Mean = 3.30/4).

Furthermore, Porter (2017) conducted a survey, and all the students agree with the statement “The

experience helped me to develop skills required to integrate theory and practice” (Mean = 5/5). The

above examples are the feedback from students themselves and they feel satisfied after 3D printing is

applied in their courses.

Overall, the integration of 3D printing in STEAM education showed varied impacts on

students' cognitive skills to foster students’ mathematical knowledge, spatial ability, creativity and

technical skills, and also non-cognitive learning outcomes such as attitudes, engagement and

motivation. We can see that 3D printing contributes to a paradigm shift that challenges a tradition of

teaching and learning in 2D models using paper-and-pencil and computer screen implementation

when explaining 3D and spatial concepts (e.g., cross-section, volume, calculus, rotation) in

mathematics (Ng & Tsang, 2021). 3D printing could provide effective cognitive support that allow

students to produce gestures and visualize mathematical proofs and concepts to build the

mathematical abilities and sense (e.g., Ng & Ferrara, 2019; Ng & Tsang, 2021). On top of this, it

assembled learners, concepts and tools that encourage students to socially support each other to solve

authentic problems together (e.g., Chien & Chu, 2017; Lin et al., 2021). Furthermore, most of the

studies consist of design-based (Cairns et al., 2018), constructionist and constructivist learning

design in school mathematics (Ng & Chan, 2021). This means that 3D printing contributes toward

characterizing effective student-centered tool-based STEAM learning tasks, and facilitates the

potential growth of maker-based pedagogical practices in collaborative classrooms (Ng & Tsang,

2021). In other words, it provides possible reorientations of mathematics curricula and offers new

modes of learning mathematics (i.e., how to learn mathematics) (Ng & Ye, 2022).

3.4 Challenges

Although studies found success in all of the studies, there were different types of challenges

that the researchers needed to tackle during the lessons. In general, there are mainly two major types
 21
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
of challenges identified. Most of the studies report challenges from the students. Students were

challenged when the 3D printing integration did not work and became frustrated with technical

problems (Cheng at al., 2020). Moreover, it is found that students have different learning paces in the

3D printing projects due to these technical challenges. Students might find the digital making and

laser cutting process challenging (Song, 2019). Also, students faced the difficulties of productive

failures (e.g., difficulties in constructing and analyzing the building models) (Dickson at al., 2021;

Herrera, Pérez & Ordóñez, 2019). Further, teachers found it hard to change from a traditional

methodology of teaching mathematics to a new setting which required a large amount of preparation

time and imagination to design activities and evaluations’ rubrics (Herrera, Pérez & Ordóñez, 2019).

It is understandable that both students and mathematics teachers may not be familiar with 3D

modeling and printing techniques.

On top of technical and functional difficulties, other studies mentioned that students could not

express themselves through a new medium using 3D printing. For example, when students were

asked to design 3D printing STEM-related products such as wind turbines (Chiriacescu et al., 2020),

earthquake-resistant vibration isolators (Lin et al., 2021), racing cars (Chien & Chu, 2017), buildings

(Bedewy et al., 2021a), and keychains (Ng, 2017), which involved much multidisciplinary

knowledge such as physics, visual arts and architecture, they found it difficult to manage different

subject knowledge to implement their design through 3D modeling and drawing techniques. In this

way, we can see that students were no longer merely apply mathematical concepts (e.g., formulas,

3D spatial sense); instead, they need to incorporate physics concepts, arts sense, calculation to find

how much materials students need to purchase, as well as computer graphics and design abilities

materials used.

However, these challenges may not be harmful to the audiences in the studies. Students and

teachers could also benefit from these challenges to build digital skills and change how they view

mathematics learning and improve their teaching/learning in the future (Dickson at al.,
 22
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
2021). Although students believed that the 3D printing activity is challenging, they still found their

learning processes are very attractive and appropriate (Herrera, Pérez & Ordóñez, 2019). Students

became proactive problem-solvers who discovered the mathematical concepts, re-expressed them

and applied multidisciplinary knowledge to solve authentic questions, instead of passively

memorizing the mathematical rules and methods (Ng & Ye, 2022).

3.5 How to teach and learn using 3D pens

As suggested in the previous section, 3D printers may lead to technical and functional

difficulties, and challenges to express mathematical concepts through new mediums. One more

practical concern is that 3D printing an artifact usually takes a long time and this activity cannot take

place in a classroom teaching setting, unless the teaching is taking place in a “STEM Lab”.

Moreover, premade 3D printing manipulatives are predetermined and fixed in size whereas 3D pens

afford open and flexible making (Ng & Ye, 2022). Using 3D printing pens is a solution to solve

some practical teaching problems that teachers meet in traditional 3D printing lessons. First, 3D pens

involve fewer complex designs than traditional manufacturing processes. Second, 3D pens have no

limitations of sizes for making objects that traditional 3D printers require students to draw the 2D

models using a design software (e.g., Tinkercad, SketchUp). With a 3D pen, students can create

products safely without technical concerns. Therefore, we can see that using 3D pens is an exception

in which students can instantly produce physical artifacts according to students’ ideas and creativity.

3D printers enable students to produce exact precision and formal products, while 3D pens

usually produce “rough draft” of ideas. These two 3D tools are very different pedagogically and

epistemologically. Four studies examined the use of 3D pens in mathematics learning (Ng et al.,

2020; Ng & Chan, 2021; Ng & Ferrara, 2020; Ng & Ye, 2022). Making with 3D pens enabled

learners to acquire mathematical knowledge and concepts through gesturing and diagramming,

embodied mathematical thinking, learning as making and tool-based mathematics learning (Ng &

Ye, 2022). Ng and Ferrara (2020) first drew on materialist vision that materials are not inert but are
 23
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
interacting with each other and with the human body through gesturing and diagramming. Students

produce gestures to produce geometrical meanings such as tangents and revolutions about an axis in

high school calculus lessons (Ng & Ferrara, 2020). Ng et al. (2020) further found that 3D pens work

as a cognitive tool to demonstrate a better retention of the mathematical properties of 3D models

significantly. This evidence suggests a four-fold framework of making to guide how to use 3D

printing pens in mathematics education to encourage students to co-construct meanings with peers,

mathematize (i.e., use mathematics to express), assemble with 3D printing and invent their artifacts

in mathematics education (Ng & Ferrara, 2020). From teachers’ perspectives, Ng and Chan (2021)

analyzed how four teachers noticed upon watching videos about showing 3D pen lessons for

teaching shape and space. Teachers learn how to interpret mathematical content via new tools which

give them insights for teaching/learning in technology-rich environments. Moreover, interpreting

generalizations and lessons learnt is crucial for students to learn with 3D pens, rather than merely

using the tools. Table 5 displays some of the pedagogies to use 3D pens in mathematics classrooms

that are mentioned by the selected studies.

Table 5. Pedagogies to use 3D pens in mathematics classrooms

Pedagogy Description

Gesturing and The two ideas are important mathematical acts of meaning-making
diagramming and boundary-drawing apparatus to evoke mathematical meanings
within body-material assemblages (Ng et al., 2020).

Embodied mathematical It is rooted in embodied interactions with environments and materials

thinking (e.g., tools) that contribute significantly to the cognitive processes of
mathematical thinking (Ng & Ye, 2022).

Learning as making It is a pedagogy that shares the constructivist view of learning as

building knowledge structures and underpinned the context in which
a learner can consciously construct their artifacts (Ng & Ye, 2022).

Tool-based mathematics Hands-on production of artifacts that are technologically enhanced in

learning mathematics education (Ng & Ye, 2022).

3.6 Theoretical frameworks to connect 3D printing and mathematics education

 24
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Based on the aforementioned discussions, 3D printing is a powerful technological tool to

produce concrete physical objects. Mathematics deals with abstract “non-physical” conceptual ideas

such as 3D modeling skills and spatial concepts to express the digital objects (Ng & Ferrare, 2020;

Song, 2019). It is curious to know how these two knowledge domains (i.e., 3D printing and

mathematics) interact and communicate with each other in mathematics education. What theoretical

frameworks are useful in studying this interaction? To identify the theories mentioned across studies,

this study considered theories that could present, organize and systematize a set of results in 3D

printing and mathematics education, which then becomes a tool/guideline for future educators. In

addition, theories that can help provide philosophical backgrounds are also identified. This section

identified three major theories that shed light to the question (see Table 6).

Interestingly, all of the articles considered their study as a “design-based/led” study. A

conceptual framework was proposed by Zhou et al. (2021) who enabled students to synthesize

knowledge from different disciplines (e.g., 3D modeling, mathematics, art). In their study,

engineering (e.g., 3D printing and manufacturing) is highlighted as a context to situate STEM

learning across disciplines, and provides students with authentic contexts for mathematics education.

On the other hand, Mathematics has its roles on inquiry and active participation that involve various

abilities such as statistics and probability, measurement and geometry, number and algebra so that

students can reason, solve problems, recall, and understand mathematical facts and concepts. To

connect the two knowledge domains, an Engineering Design Cycle is employed to adopt a design-

based pedagogy utilizing 3D printing for the development and implementation of STEM programs.

The cycle suggests five major steps for students to scope their problem, create ideas, design and

construct, assess the design, and redesign and reconstruct their work. It serves as a useful

pedagogical framework to connect multidisciplinary knowledge domains that “design” represents a

strategy for fostering student creativity and problem-solving skills whereas “design thinking”

represents a process of reflective practice applied to the problem-solving process.

 25
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
The second idea is the “learning as making” approach (n = 4), especially in the case of using

3D pens for mathematics learning. Design is a pedagogy for “constructionist learning” (Papert, 1980)

that students use technological media (i.e., 3D printing) to construct models and diagrams to

visualize and manipulate mathematical concepts such as shape, space and volume (Ng & Chan,

2021). The theory of constructionism shares the constructivist view of learning as ‘building

knowledge structures’ and further underpins the context in which learners can construct their

artifacts through learning-by-making (Papert & Harel, 1991). Ng and Ye (2022) further added the

idea of embodied mathematical thinking to the framework. The notion suggests that mathematical

understanding can be scaffolded through embodied interactions with environments and materials/

tools that motivate students to use their hands to construct their mathematical thinking. Drawing on

this framework, 3D printing is a form of Making that empowers students to connect between the two

knowledge domains (i.e., mathematics and 3D printing) so that they can express mathematics

concepts to co-construct technologically-enhanced artifacts.

Third, with the embeddedness of digital technologies in mathematics education, researchers

have tried to bridge between mathematical and digital competency (e.g., Geraniou & Jankvist, 2019).

In our review, two digital skills are suggested to connect 3D printing and mathematics: spatial

thinking and mathematical modeling. First, spatial skills have been recognised as digital processes or

skills that are vital for understanding and engaging in STEM education (e.g., Fowler et al., 2021;

Herrera et al., 2019). In 3D printing education, spatial thinking (n = 7) is essential for the

development of mathematical thinking which can help connect mathematical concepts and 3D

printing so as to represent and manipulate information in learning and solve problems. Herrera et al.

(2019) proposed a classification of seven major spatial skills that students can use to represent 3D

objects via visualization and orientation. The idea is useful for educators to understand how students

generate a mental image from different sources of information (e.g., computer-aided design, 3D

printing), inspect the image to observe its position or the presence of parts of the elements, conduct
 26
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
transformations (e.g., rotations, translations, scaling, decomposition).

The second commonly mentioned competence is mathematical modeling (n = 6) that acts as a

process to use mathematical concepts to represent, analyze, make predictions and provide insights

into real-world phenomena (e.g., Asempapa & Love, 2020, Cairns et al., 2018). When teaching

mathematics modeling through 3D printing, technological tools such as computer simulations and

computer-aided design can be used to formulate and revise mathematical models so that students can

develop mathematical concepts and related skills through 3D design processes (Asempapa & Love,

2020). Lin et al. (2021) adopted repetitive modeling in STEM-based activity to enhance students’

imagination to stimulate students’ mathematics interest and learning performance. Likewise, Cairns

et al. (2018) used 2D modeling activities with 3D fabrication to encourage student reflections on

their own reasoning, explanations and predictions, as well as their interpretations of problem

situations. Although these studies do not establish a sound framework to illustrate how mathematics

modeling works, it is an important idea that helps educators to connect 3D printing and mathematics

education.

Table 6. Theoretical framework to connect knowledge domains

Theoretical frameworks Sample studies

Engineering design cycle, design thinking Zhou et al. (2022)

Four-fold framework of making in mathematics, Ng & Ferrara (2020); Ng & Chan

constructionism, materialist vision, constructivism (2021); Ng & Ye (2022)

Mathematical digital competency (e.g., spatial thinking, Asempapa & Love (2020); Herrera et

mathematical modeling) al. (2019)

3.7 Recommendations for future work

 27
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
This review provides an overview of empirical research literature that pertains to 3D printing

studies within the mathematics educational contexts. According to the prevalent research questions,

this study contributes to filling a few of these gaps as well as providing directions for future research

on 3D printing and mathematics education:

● Recent STEAM models offer science, engineering and technology as the central roles of

STEAM and studies may underestimate the importance of mathematics and design elements

(e.g., Corlu et al., 2014; Kertil & Gurel, 2016). As mathematics has a close relationship with

technological tools, future research should try to rethink the role of mathematics in STEAM

education via tool-based pedagogies.

● Studies have explored more than one technology that facilitates the 3D printing production,

no matter in terms of software or hardware. Due to the trend of STEAM education and

technological advancement, researchers have applied different platforms and technologies

(e.g., 3D printing pens, augmented reality, Geogebra) to facilitate the 3D printing

production and teaching/learning.

● In the light of a lack of rigorous research methods, future research will develop different

quantitative and qualitative assessment methods to evaluate students’ learning performance

by using knowledge tests, self-perceived surveys, and learners’ artifacts, projects, and

conversations. Furthermore, educators and researchers should construct different

pedagogical strategies (e.g., flipped classroom, gamification) and theoretical perspectives

(e.g., self-determination theory, constructionism) to understand how students motivate and

engage themselves in the making process. Also, more evidence is necessary to understand

the learning behavior of students such as student-material and student-student interaction

and collaboration so as to develop their multiple learning skills (e.g., problem-solving,

creativity) in the context of 3D printing.

● Challenges were identified in this review that 3D printing is a hurdle for some teachers and
 28
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
students. Students are not familiarized with 3D printing, and they have a few connections

with 3D printing in their daily lives. It is suggested that future studies can propose

interventions to reduce the technical difficulties through other pedagogies and technologies.

Students can also gain much satisfaction from the learning activities and easily express

themselves mathematically.

4. Conclusion

The traditional chalk-and-talk method of classroom delivery has gradually become outmoded.

3D printing offers educators the opportunities to revolutionize mathematics education in that it offers

students cognitive and social support to build mathematical concepts especially 3D visual-spatial

sense (Iannone & Miller, 2019). Although there are still many challenges such as hardware and

software optimization, processing, formatting, printing and maintenance issues, 3D printing is an

effective tool to develop students’ mathematics understandings and attitudes with the trend of

STEAM education. The maker movement is promoted rigorously throughout the years and

mathematics is one of the core elements of STEAM education (Lin et al., 2020). Applying 3D

printing into mathematics education facilitated comprehensively to cooperate with this education

trend (Asempapa & Love, 2021). Also, due to the rapid advance of technologies in the fourth

industrial revolution, it is also a good opportunity to develop their digital skills for students to learn

3D modeling, drawing and printing in their school life so that they may apply it in their future job

and studies (Ng & Tsang, 2021).

There are several limitations in this review. The overall number of selected studies is small and

only 30 studies were included in this review. It is suggested that future studies could apply more

database searches, not limited to the Web of Science and Scopes databases, in light of the small

number of publications. Since 3D printing is an emergent technology, the first article was found in

2015. It is foreseen that more studies will be produced, and a longer time period of studies could be

examined to give a fuller picture of how 3D printing technology was implemented in mathematics
 29
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
education. Second, there is a lack of appropriate scientific research related to both longitudinal

evaluations and perceptions of 3D printing in mathematics education using rigorous quantitative

methods such as factor analysis and structural equation modeling. There is a need to develop quality

research outputs to systematically examine the impact of 3D printing on student learning in the field

of education.

Reference

Anand, N., & Dogan, B. (2021). Impact of informal learning environments on STEM education—

Views of elementary students and their parents. School Science and Mathematics, 121(6), 369-

377.

Anastasiou, A., Tsirmpas, C., Rompas, A., Giokas, K., & Koutsouris, D. (2013, November). 3D

printing: Basic concepts mathematics and technologies. In 13th IEEE International Conference

on BioInformatics and BioEngineering (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Asempapa, R. S., & Love, T. S. (2021). Teaching math modeling through 3D‐printing: Examining

the influence of an integrative professional development. School Science and

Mathematics, 121(2), 85-95.

Beattie, R., Hippenmeyer, S., & Pauler, F. M. (2020, May). Scopes: sparking curiosity through open-

source platforms in education and science. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 5, p. 48). Frontiers.

Bedewy, S., Choi, K., Lavicza, Z., Fenyvesi, K., & Houghton, T. (2021a). STEAM Practices to

Explore Ancient Architectures Using Augmented Reality and 3D Printing with GeoGebra. Open

Education Studies, 3(1), 176-187.

 30
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Bedewy, S., Lavicza, Z., Haas, B., & Lieban, D. (2021b). A STEAM Practice Approach to Integrate

Architecture, Culture and History to Facilitate Mathematical Problem-Solving. Education

Sciences, 12(1), 9.

Bower, M., Stevenson, M., Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Hatzigianni, M. (2018). Makerspaces in Primary

School Settings – Advancing 21st Century and STEM capabilities using 3D Design and 3D

Printing. Macquarie University. Retrieved from https://primarymakers.com.

Cairns, D. R., Curtis, R., Sierros, K. A., & Bolyard, J. J. (2018). Taking professional development

from 2D to 3D: Design-based learning, 2D modeling, and 3D fabrication for authentic

standards-aligned lesson plans. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 12(2).

Campbell, T. (2011). Could 3D printing change the world?: Technologies, potential, and

implications of additive manufacturing. Atlantic Council.

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., Grant, C.,

Sheppard, T. D., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers' beliefs and 3D

printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers &

Education, 158, 103983.

Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. P., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & MacFadden, B. (2021). Exploring the role of 3D

printing and STEM integration levels in students' STEM career interest. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 52(3), 1262-1278.

Chien, Y. H., & Chu, P. Y. (2018). The different learning outcomes of high school and college

students on a 3D-printing STEAM engineering design curriculum. International Journal of

Science and Mathematics Education, 16(6), 1047-1064.

Chiriacescu, B., Chiriacescu, F. S., & Voinea, S. (2021). Building and testing a wind turbine

experimental kit for student. Romanian Reports in Physics, 73(3), 1-10.

Choo, S., Park, S., & Nelson, N. J. (2021). Evaluating spatial thinking ability using item response

theory: Differential item functioning across math learning disabilities and geometry
 31
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
instructions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(2), 68-81.

Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2021). 21st century

skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer

International Publishing.

Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications

for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 74-85.

de Cataldo, R., Griffith, K. M., & Fogarty, K. H. (2018). Hands-on hybridization: 3D-printed models

of hybrid orbitals. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(9), 1601-1606.

Dabbagh, N., & Dass, S. (2013). Case problems for problem-based pedagogical approaches: A

comparative analysis. Computers & Education, 64, 161-174.

Dickson, B., Weber, J., Kotsopoulos, D., Boyd, T., Jiwani, S., & Roach, B. (2021). The role of

productive failure in 3D printing in a middle school setting. International Journal of Technology

and Design Education, 31(3), 489-502.

Dilling, F., & Witzke, I. (2020). The use of 3D-printing technology in calculus education: Concept

formation processes of the concept of derivative with printed graphs of functions. Digital

Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6(3), 320-339.

Dizon, J. R. C., Espera Jr, A. H., Chen, Q., & Advincula, R. C. (2018). Mechanical characterization

of 3D-printed polymers. Additive Manufacturing, 20, 44-67.

Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, governance, globalization,

7(3), 11-14.

Ford, S., & Minshall, T. (2019). Invited review article: Where and how 3D printing is used in

teaching and education. Additive Manufacturing, 25, 131-150.

Fowler, S., Cutting, C., Kennedy, J., Leonard, S. N., Gabriel, F., & Jaeschke, W. (2021). Technology

enhanced learning environments and the potential for enhancing spatial reasoning: a mixed

methods study. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1-24.

 32
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Geraniou, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2019). Towards a definition of “mathematical digital competency”.

Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(1), 29-45.

Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational

Review, 84(4), 495-504.

Hansen, A. K., Langdon, T. R., Mendrin, L. W., Peters, K., Ramos, J., & Lent, D. D. (2020).

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

Integrative and Comparative Biology, 60(4), 896-905.

Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational

thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-

310.

Hsu, Y. S., & Fang, S. C. (2019). Opportunities and challenges of STEM education. In Asia-Pacific

STEM Teaching Practices (pp. 1-16). Springer, Singapore.

Huleihil, M. (2017). 3D printing technology as innovative tool for math and geometry teaching

applications. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 164, No. 1, p.

012023). IOP Publishing.

Iannone, P., & Miller, D. (2019). Guided notes for university mathematics and their impact on

students’ note-taking behaviour. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(3), 387-404.

Kertil, M., & Gurel, C. (2016). Mathematical modeling: A bridge to STEM education. International

Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 44-55.

Kietzmann, J., Pitt, L., & Berthon, P. (2015). Disruptions, decisions, and destinations: Enter the age

of 3-D printing and additive manufacturing. Business Horizons, 58(2), 209-215.

Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., Pong, T. C., Ng, D. T. K., & Qiao, S. (2021). Developing a

framework for blended design-based learning in a first-year multidisciplinary design course.

IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(2), 210-219.

Lin, K. Y., Hsiao, H. S., Chang, Y. S., Chien, Y. H., & Wu, Y. T. (2018). The effectiveness of using
 33
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
3D printing technology in STEM project-based learning activities. EURASIA Journal of

Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), 1633.

Lin, K. Y., Lu, S. C., Hsiao, H. H., Kao, C. P., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Developing student

imagination and career interest through a STEM project using 3D printing with repetitive

modeling. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.

Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing learning in technology-rich

maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers & Education, 157,

103944.

Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and

tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23.

Herrera, L., Castro Pérez, J., & Juárez Ordóñez, S. (2019). Developing spatial mathematical skills

through 3D tools: augmented reality, virtual environments and 3D printing. International

Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(4), 1385-1399.

Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An

exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041.

Ng, O. L., & Chan, T. (2021). In‐service mathematics teachers’ video‐based noticing of 3D printing

pens “in action”. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 751-767.

Ng, O. L., & Ferrara, F. (2020). Towards a materialist vision of ‘learning as making’: The case of 3D

printing pens in school mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics

Education, 18(5), 925-944.

Ng, O. L., & Tsang, W. K. (2021). Constructionist Learning in School Mathematics: Implications for

Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ECNU Review of Education, 2096531120978414.

Ng, O. L., Shi, L., & Ting, F. (2020). Exploring differences in primary students’ geometry learning

outcomes in two technology-enhanced environments: dynamic geometry and 3D

printing. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-13.

 34
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Ng, O. L., & Ye, H. (2022). Mathematics learning as embodied making: primary students’

investigation of 3D geometry with handheld 3D printing technology. Asia Pacific Education

Review, 1-13.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.),

Constructionism (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Ablex Publishing.

Paul, S. (2018). 3D Printed Manipulatives in a Multivariable Calculus Classroom. Primus, 28(9),

821-834.

Perez, O., Pitcher, M., Espinoza, P., Gomex, H., Hemmitt, H., Anaya, R., ... & Nevarez, H. (2015,

June). Analysis of the Impact of 3D Technology in STEM-Based Courses; Specifically

Introduction to Engineering Courses. In 122nd American Society of Engineering Education

(ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition. Seattle, WA.

Porter, L. A. (2017). High-impact practices in materials science education: Student research

internships leading to pedagogical innovation in STEM laboratory learning activities. MRS

Advances, 2(31-32), 1667-1672.

Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and methods for

connecting theoretical approaches: First steps towards a conceptual framework. ZDM , 40(2),

165-178.

Schlegel, R. J., Chu, S. L., Chen, K., Deuermeyer, E., Christy, A. G., & Quek, F. (2019). Making in

the classroom: Longitudinal evidence of increases in self-efficacy and STEM possible selves

over time. Computers & Education, 142, 103637.

Shahrubudin, N., Lee, T. C., & Ramlan, R. (2019). An overview on 3D printing technology:

Technological, materials, and applications. Procedia Manufacturing, 35, 1286-1296.

Shen, S., Wang, S., Qi, Y., Wang, Y., & Yan, X. (2021). Teacher Suggestion Feedback Facilitates
 35
3D PRINTING & MATHEMATICS
Creativity of Students in STEAM Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 3653.

Song, M. J. (2019). The application of digital fabrication technologies to the art and design

curriculum in a teacher preparation program: a case study. International Journal of Technology

and Design Education, 30(4), 687-707.

Tay, Y. W. D., Panda, B., Paul, S. C., Noor Mohamed, N. A., Tan, M. J., & Leong, K. F. (2017). 3D

printing trends in building and construction industry: a review. Virtual and Physical

Prototyping, 12(3), 261-276.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:

Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & health sciences, 15(3),

398-405.

Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on

learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research

Review, 30, 100326.

Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N., Rittenbruch, M., & Davis, J. (2022). A design-led conceptual

framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian

context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 383-411.

View publication stats