See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/348464587

Teaching Math Modeling through 3D-Printing: Examining the Influence of an

Integrative Professional Development

Article in School Science and Mathematics · February 2021

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12448

CITATIONS READS

19 1,096

2 authors, including:

Tyler S. Love
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
89 PUBLICATIONS 539 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tyler S. Love on 21 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Link] 1

Teaching Math Modeling through 3D-Printing: Examining the Influence of an Integrative

Professional Development

Reuben S. Asempapa and Tyler S. Love

Department of Teacher Education, The Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg

Author Note

Reuben S. Asempapa, Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education, rsa26@[Link]

Tyler S. Love, Assistant Professor of Elementary/Middle Grades STEM Education,

tsl48@[Link]

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: 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. It has been published

in final form at [Link] This article may be used for non-commercial

purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.

This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work,

without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation.

Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to

Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise

making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and

websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.

[Link] 2

Abstract

Mathematical modeling is a critical component of the current K–12 mathematics, science,

and technology and engineering (T&E) educational standards in the United States. However,

mathematical modeling is often overlooked or underemphasized in integrative STEM lessons.

This could be attributed to teachers’ limited content and pedagogical knowledge related to

integrating mathematical modeling in integrative STEM lessons. Continual advances in

technologies like 3D design and printing soft- ware and additive manufacturing processes now

allow students to see abstract mathematical modeling concepts in contextualized and practical

forms. Consequently, we examined changes in mathematics, science, and T&E teachers’

mathematical modeling knowledge and views resulting from a 1-day integrative professional

development (PD) experience. The PD specifically focused on applying mathematical modeling

concepts to design and 3D print solutions to integrative STEM lessons. A sample of 50

participating teachers reported increases in certain mathematical modeling knowledge areas, and

a large percentage indicated they were more likely to implement mathematical modeling in their

classrooms. The results from this study indicated that integrative PD could enhance teachers’

content knowledge, practices, and views about integrative STEM lessons including mathematical

modeling and 3D printing. The findings from this study have implications for teachers, school

districts, researchers, and professional development providers.

Keywords: 3D printing, mathematical modeling, mathematics education, professional

development, technology and engineering education

[Link] 3

Concerns for advancing integrative science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (I-

STEM) education (Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012; Wells & Ernst, 2012/2015) have

increased in recent years and continue to develop as a construct in education. Similarly, there is

growing awareness of the importance of mathematical modeling or modeling as an integral part

of I-STEM competencies for all students, which requires thoughtful consideration of what is

needed in terms of I-STEM problem-based learning applications for teachers. Modeling in

schools has the potential to enable students to develop flexible, creative, and powerful ways of

becoming problem solvers in STEM-related fields. We propose that mathematical modeling has

the potential to influence and contribute to the understanding of ideas and concepts of other

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Intentionally integrating

mathematical modeling in STEM activities frequently serves as a conduit to effective practices

for teaching integrative lessons as called for in various cross-cutting STEM standards

documents. For example, using mathematics and computational thinking (including

mathematical modeling) is one of the eight science and engineering practices in the Next

Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In the recently released

Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL): The Role of Technology and

Engineering in STEM Education (International Technology and Engineering Educators

Association [ITEEA], 2020), mathematical modeling is included at the benchmark level because

it is described as contributing to the optimization of technological and engineering solutions. It is

also a major component of the Common Core State Standards of Mathematics (CCSSM)

document (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA Center] & Council

of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010).

[Link] 4

When integrated with 3D printing (a form of additive manufacturing), there exist several

opportunities to address mathematical modeling needs while helping students explore

mathematics in authentic settings. The use of 3D printing technology in schools may also

provide an effective method for exploring modeling in a more realistic context; and can be used

as the basis for students’ mathematical modeling experiences. This evolving technology makes

the realization of intangible mathematical expressions much easier by creating tangible

representations that were not possible using traditional subtractive manufacturing technologies

(Gür, 2015). Although 3D printing technology is a powerful tool that can promote I-STEM, the

research on the integration of mathematical modeling and 3D printing is limited. Using

technologies like 3D printing to apply mathematical modeling concepts enables students and

teachers to utilize and improve their mathematical abilities and skills (Edwards & Penney, 2001).

Therefore, this study examined how the integration of 3D printing, an emerging technological

tool, influenced educators’ teaching and learning of mathematical modeling practices through an

integrative professional development (PD) workshop. This research study sought to bridge the

existing gap between mathematical modeling and 3D printing.

Theoretical Framework and Related Literature Review

Mathematical Modeling

Mathematical modeling in teaching practices has become a prominent topic worldwide

because of its importance in I-STEM and everyday life. The writers of the guidelines for

assessment in mathematical modeling education (GAIMME) report defined mathematical

modeling as “a process that uses mathematics to represent, analyze, make predictions or

otherwise provide insight into real-world phenomena” (Consortium for Mathematics and Its

Applications [COMAP] & Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics [SIAM], 2016, p. 8).
[Link] 5

According to Borromeo Ferri (2018), mathematical modeling is a process that involves

transitioning back and forth between reality and mathematics and using mathematics to

understand and solve a specified real-world problem. Thus, one can think of mathematical

modeling as the process of taking an open-ended and multifaceted situation, usually from life or

the real-world, and apply the knowledge of mathematics to solve the problem.

Although mathematical modeling is defined in the literature in several ways, they

converge to the same contextual meaning. For example, Borromeo Ferri (2018) described

modeling as an “activity [which] involves transitioning back and forth between reality and

mathematics” (p. 13). Alternatively, the process of mathematical modeling can be described as

using several learning situations; from deductively arranged authentic problem modeling

activities (English & Sriraman, 2010) to inductively organized inquiry-based problem-solving

activities leading the learner to formulate general patterns (Sokolowski & Rackly, 2011).

Although these definitions may suggest several interpretations of mathematical modeling,

researchers and educators agree that it is an iterative process that links mathematics and authentic

real-world questions (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). For the purpose of this study and in the context of

3D printing, we comprehensively describe mathematical modeling as:

The process of encountering an indeterminate situation, problematizing it, and bringing

inquiry, reasoning, and mathematical structures to bear to transform the situation. The

modeling produces an outcome– a model–which is a description…, drawn from the

mathematical disciplines, in relation to the person’s experience. (Confrey & Maloney,

2007, p. 60).
[Link] 6

Mathematical Modeling Competencies

For this study, we embrace the perspective of mathematical modeling as a process for

which developing competencies are essential. There are several definitions of modeling

competence that describe the capacity to execute the processes involved in mathematical

modeling (Blomhøj & Jensen, 2003; Maaβ, 2006; Niss, Blum, & Galbraith, 2007). However,

those relevant to our work are by Maaβ (2006) and by Blomhøj and Jensen (2003). Maaβ stated

that “modelling competencies include skills and abilities to perform modelling processes

appropriately and goal-oriented as well as the willingness to put these into action” (p. 117). The

skills and abilities with modeling competencies include (a) understanding the real problem and

setting up a model based on reality, (b) setting up a mathematical model from the real model, (c)

solving the mathematical questions within the mathematical model, (d) interpreting the

mathematical results in a real situation, and (e) validating the solution. Similarly, Blomhøj and

Jensen (2003) defined mathematical modeling competency as “being able to autonomously and

insightfully carry through all parts of a mathematical modeling process in a certain context” (p.

126). Therefore, these definitions suggest that modeling competency is linked to the specific

description of the mathematical modeling process.

Teaching Math Modeling through 3D Printing

Technological tools such as 3D printing can be employed in several ways in the

mathematical modeling process. Computers and 3D printers are useful technological tools for

mathematics education (Lingefjärd, 2006) and can be utilized to improve higher-order critical

thinking skills such as modeling, interpreting, analyzing and generalizing phenomena (Ang,

2010). For example, real-world computer simulations can be used to build mathematical models

so that students understand the value and importance of parameters in a model. Berry (2019)
[Link] 7

explained that a 3D computer-aided design (CAD) model can be used to solve a real-world

problem by allowing students time to develop the skills to formulate and revise the model in the

modeling process. The use of technological tools makes mathematics learning more meaningful,

relevant, and functional (Ang, 2010). When technology such as 3D printing is incorporated in the

process of mathematical modeling, cognitive modeling competencies are formed, and it enhances

the conceptualization of the modeling process by learners (Maaβ, 2006; Niss, Blum, & Galbraith,

2007).

Mathematical modeling strategies have been influenced by the development and

introduction of technological tools (Greefrath, 2011, Lingefjärd, 2006). The use of technology,

including 3D printing, seems relevant whether modeling is seen as a vehicle for teaching

mathematics and other subjects or as part of teaching and learning mathematical content

(Greefrath, 2011). Some researchers have reported that technology has been successfully used

through exploration activities to teach mathematical modeling (Ang, 2010; Berry, 2019).

Additionally, researchers have acknowledged for the past few years the importance of

technological resources in the mathematical modeling solution process (Confrey & Maloney,

2007; Lingefjärd, 2006) and others see great potential for technology in the reasoning process

that occurs throughout the modeling process. This was confirmed in a study by Geiger, Faragher,

and Goos (2010), where technology played a major role in the conceptualization of the model

and the modeling solution process. Furthermore, other studies found that technology fostered

students’ meaningful exploration toward discovery learning, maintained their interest modeling,

and the application of mathematics to the scenario (Ang, 2010; Greefrath, 2011).

Despite the known benefits of integrating technology in mathematics instruction, there

have been a limited number of studies examining the integration of mathematical modeling and
[Link] 8

3D printing, especially within the context of K–12 education. 3D printing has made the

realization of mathematical models easier than ever, and it helps bring intangible mathematical

expressions to life. These 3D printed mathematical models are important for hands-on learning

and can also be used as functional prototypes (Gür, 2015). Additionally, 3D modeling software

allows students to design things they could not create without the program. While mathematical

modeling may not be the intentional focus of all I-STEM activities, students often experience

some form of mathematical modeling during many of them (Kertil & Gurel, 2016), and there are

examples where 3D printing was incorporated in classroom contexts with potential for a greater

focus on mathematical modeling concepts.

At the elementary level, studies demonstrated how the popular boat cargo design

challenge could be recreated using 3D printing instead of tin foil to design the boat hull

(Mendez, Baird, & Patino, 2019; Novak & Wisdom, 2018). Although Mendez et al. (2019)

eluded to students applying mathematical modeling practices in the development of their boat

hulls, it was not explicitly emphasized as a major focus of the lessons. At the secondary level,

Corum and Garofalo (2018) demonstrated how mathematical modeling could serve as the basis

for teaching advanced eighth grade students about Ampere’s Law from pre-designed 3D printed

solenoids that varied in length. While this activity focused heavily on applying algebra concepts

to develop mathematical models predicting the magnetic field strength produced by the varying

solenoids, it did not provide opportunities for students to design their own 3D printed solenoid.

The process of designing and testing 3D printed parts allows additional opportunities for students

to apply mathematical modeling concepts and also provides a more rigorous STEM learning

experience.
[Link] 9

Conversely, there are a few exemplary lessons where mathematical modeling was

intentionally integrated as a core focus of the STEM design challenge. Kertil and Gurel (2016)

used the “modeling as a vehicle” approach to teach pre-service physics teachers about

mathematical modeling through rocketry. Their design helped the pre-service teachers to learn

the physics concepts in an authentic context and recognize the connections to engineering design

and mathematical modeling concepts. Teachers’ lack of emphasis on mathematical modeling in

STEM lessons and activities can often be attributed to their limited knowledge about

mathematical modeling and associated pedagogies (Blum, 2015; Kertil & Gurel, 2016).

Increasing teachers’ mathematical modeling content and pedagogical knowledge through pre-

service and PD experiences is needed to help enhance the inclusion of this naturally integrative

mathematics concept (Blum, 2015; Kertil & Gurel, 2016).

Professional Development in Math Modeling

For the past two decades, a large body of literature has emerged on in-service PD, teacher

learning, and teacher change. Teacher change requires action and ultimately, teachers decide

whether they will accept or reject the changes proposed from PD experiences. Along with their

attitudes and beliefs, teachers’ experiences in PD shape their identity and their learning (Borko,

2004). To instigate teacher change, one needs to understand their experiences through PD. The

understanding and implementation of the mathematical modeling practices in teaching and

student learning requires teachers to enroll in some form of PD. Some studies suggest that PD

experiences demonstrate the potential to have a considerably positive influence on teachers’

classroom practices and student achievement (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Borko,

2004). According to Chan (2013), teachers who participated in model-eliciting activities (MEAs)

workshops found that MEAs were useful to enhance students’ problem-solving ability and
[Link] 10

improve their attitudes toward modeling and mathematics in general. Additionally, teachers who

participated in mathematical modeling workshops appreciated the creative and collaborative

experience related to teaching and learning in integrative contexts (Chan, 2013).

Although mathematical modeling has been around for some time now, concerted efforts

with teachers through PD occurred only in recent years (Borromeo Ferri, 2018; Chan, 2013).

Two main challenges exist among teachers when promoting the use of modeling practices and

activities in mathematics classrooms (Chan, 2013, Lesh & Doerr, 2003). First, there seems or

appears to be misconceptions or confusion among teachers regarding what mathematical

modeling is and its practices (Blum, 2015; Cirillo, Pelesko, Felton-Koestler, & Rubel, 2016).

Modeling is often mistakenly perceived or interpreted as model drawing or step-by-step

representation of solving mathematics problem (Chan, 2013; Lesh & Doerr, 2003). Secondly,

most U.S. teachers and students are constrained by traditional high stakes assessment systems,

which results in limitations to time management and the learning of mathematical modeling

activities in the classroom (Lesh & Doerr, 2003). Therefore, these challenges provided

motivation for us to organize this PD to guide teachers toward facilitation of mathematical

modeling practices using 3D printing technology.

Research Questions

This study aimed at gaining insight into the effect of an integrative PD on teachers’

mathematical modeling knowledge based on teachers’ context, including their content area,

grade level band, and teaching experience. We chose to explore these variables because they

have been examined by some researchers in other studies and found to have some influence on

teachers’ mathematical modeling practices (Borromeo Ferri, 2018; Paolucci & Wessels, 2017).

The reviewed literature led us to develop specific questions examining the influence of an
[Link] 11

integrative PD experience that used 3D design and printing to teach mathematical modeling

concepts. Therefore, the following research questions guided the study:

1. Research Question 1 (RQ1): To what extent did the integrative PD experience

involving 3D printing influence teachers’ mathematical modeling knowledge?

2. Research Question 2 (RQ2): To what extent did the PD influence teachers’ views of

mathematical modeling according to participants content area, grade level taught, and

teaching experience?

3. Research Question 3 (RQ3): To what extent did the integrative PD involving 3D

printing applications influence teachers’ future plans to implement and collaborate on

mathematical modeling in their classrooms?

Methodology

Participants and Context

The PD was advertised to public middle school mathematics, T&E, and STEM educators

within a mid-Atlantic state. Specifically, school districts were required to send a team consisting

of two teachers: one mathematics educator and one T&E or STEM educator. These parameters

were created because mathematical modeling was emphasized in the state’s middle school

mathematics standards, and it provided an opportunity to investigate the collaborative

interactions that drew upon these educators’ expertise in mathematics and 3D design.

Participation was voluntary and teachers earned continuing education credits from their state

department of education for attending. There were 50 participants representing 25 distinct

public-school districts from across the state. The six-hour PD session took place in the spring

during the academic year, and donor funding obtained by the researchers’ university provided all
[Link] 12

attendees with a 3D printer for their school as well as mathematical modeling instructional

resources developed by the researchers.

Survey participants were primarily Caucasian (98%) and taught grades six through eight.

There was an even number of males and females, and their mean age was 39 years old. The

average years of teaching experience among the group was 14, and most had a master’s degree

or higher. Approximately half of the participants taught in a suburban school district, while the

majority were mathematics teachers, and a quarter were technology and engineering educators.

Additionally, almost half of the participants were STEM, and science technology, engineering,

arts, and mathematics (STEAM) K–12 educators. All 50 participants held a teaching certification

in the state where this study was conducted (see Table 1).

Table 1

Participants’ Demographics

Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 25 (50)
Female 25 (50)
Age
22-30 11 (22)
31-40 17 (33)
41+ 22 (43)
Ethnicity
White 49 (98)
Hispanic 1 (2)
Highest Degree Earned
Bachelor’s 8 (16)
Master’s 20 (40)
Master’s +30 22 (44)
School District
Rural 13 (26)
Suburban 24 (48)
Urban 13 (26)
Content Area Taught
Math 23 (46)
T&E 13 (26)
[Link] 13

Science/STEAM 14 (28)
Grade Levels Taught
K–5 12 (24)
6–8 38 (76)
Teaching Experience
1–5 years 6 (12)
6–15 years 23 (44)
16+ years 20 (39)
Unreported 1 (2)
Note. T&E = Technology and Engineering education.

More than half of the participants (60%) had no prior training or teaching experience

related to mathematical modeling. Additionally, less than one third said they were currently

teaching mathematical modeling (32%) in their STEM lessons often and no more than one lesson

per week (73%). Moreover, less than a quarter of the teachers indicated that their school district

supported the teaching of mathematical modeling (22%) and provided curricular resources to

help integrate it (24%). (see Table 2).

Table 2

Participants’ Prior Mathematical Modeling Experiences

Experiences n (%)
Training on Teaching Math Modeling
Yes 15 (30)
No 30 (60)
Unsure 5 (10)
District Support in Teaching Math Modeling
Yes 11 (22)
No 23 (46)
Unsure 16 (32)
Curriculum has Math Modeling Resources
Yes 12 (24)
No 18 (36)
Unsure 20 (40)
Currently Teach Math Modeling
Yes 16 (32)
No 18 (36)
Unsure 16 (32)
[Link] 14

Modeling Lessons Taught per Week?

1 11 (73)
2 1 (7)
3 2 (13)
5+ 1 (7)

Data and Instrumentation

The survey used for this current study was composed of two parts. The first part included

items adapted from the mathematical modeling knowledge scale (MMKS). The MMKS

(Asempapa, 2020) is a validated 13-item questionnaire that measures practicing teachers’

knowledge of mathematical modeling. The scale comprised of 12 true or false items and one

open-ended item that explored how teachers conceptualize mathematical modeling. The

reliability measure of the MMKS’s internal consistency is reflected in the Cronbach’s alpha of

.84 for the 12 items (Asempapa, 2020). The MMKS has been used in other PD programs

including advanced teacher capacity “modeling with algebra and geometry” organized by the

Ohio University, and teaching “modeling across the curriculum” organized by Penn State

Harrisburg and found to be useful. The second part included items on a rating scale that

examined teachers’ interest and experiences with 3D and mathematical modeling practices. The

rating scale was deemed appropriate because it is the most useful way to evaluate behavior or an

interest on a continuum (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013).

Data Collection and Analysis

The PD workshop consisted of four components: a) training on mathematical modeling

content and pedagogy, b) training on free 3D design software packages (TinkerCAD, Google

SketchUp, and OnShape) and how to use the 3D printers, c) collaborative curriculum planning

time, and d) presentation of lessons that demonstrated integration of mathematical modeling and

3D printing. In the mathematical modeling training session, participants were introduced to

[Link] 15

modeling concepts, competencies in modeling, and how modeling aligns with the Common Core

and Pennsylvania mathematics standards. Additionally, participants designed a bench and other

geometric shapes using Mathlink cubes and isometric drawing tools. Later during the 3D printing

session, participants first completed a tutorial in which they designed a keychain, then were led

through a design challenge where they applied their mathematical modeling skills to design a

bench, which built upon the activity they completed earlier in the mathematical modeling

session. The integrative lesson examples presented during the final session of the workshop were

the same as those described in the implications section of this article.

Although both quantitative and qualitative data sources were collected during the

integrative PD using the pre-post surveys, the data gathered were quantitively analyzed using the

SPSS version 25 statistical software. The data collected were organized and coded and the

analyses were performed in different steps. First, descriptive statistics and tests for assumptions

were conducted to analyze the overall item response and identify any possible trends or

anomalies in the responses. Next, we conducted a paired-samples t-test to determine whether

there was a difference in teachers’ mathematical modeling knowledge before and after

participating in the integrative PD. Finally, we performed factorial ANCOVAs using selected

categorical variables to investigate whether there was any significant effect on teachers’

modeling knowledge between the start and end of the PD after controlling for the effects of their

prior knowledge. All analyses were considered statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

Findings

Research Question 1 (RQ1)

The first research question explored the extent to which the integrative PD experience

involving modeling and 3D printing influenced teachers’ mathematical modeling knowledge. In

[Link] 16

doing so, we performed both a descriptive analysis and paired sample t-test to answer this

research question. A descriptive analysis of the demographic and teacher background questions

on the survey revealed that some of the participants were familiar with modeling and 3D printing

technology before participating in the PD project. Table 3 shows participants’ responses for each

of the items on both the pre-and post-survey questionnaire. On average, the participants mean

scores on the post-survey (Mpost-survey = 10.64) was relatively higher than the pre-survey (Mpre-

survey =10.00). This result indicated that teachers’ modeling and 3D technology knowledge had

relatively increased from pre-to-post survey, indicating some positive effect of the integrative PD

project. Additionally, a paired sample t-test indicated that scores were statistically significantly

higher for the post-survey (M= 10.64, SD = 0.87) than for the pre-survey (M = 10.00, SD = 0.90),

t(49) = 4.15), p < .05, d = 0.59. Overall, there seems to be a moderate effect size between the

pre- and post-survey measures (Cohen, 1988; Cumming, 2012).

Table 3

Participants’ MMKS Pre and Post Responses

Pre-Survey Post Survey

Item CR– n (%) ICR–n (%) CR–n (%) ICR–n (%)

Q1 50 (100) 0 (0) 50 (100) 0 (0)

Q2 50 (100) 0 (0) 50 (100) 0 (0)
Q3 34 (68) 16 (32) 32 (64) 18 (36)
Q4 50 (100) 0 (0) 50 (100) 0 (0)
Q5 3 (6) 47 (94) 48 (96) 2 (4)
Q6 50 (100) 0 (0) 50 (100) 0 (0)
Q7 46 (92) 4 (8) 48 (96) 2 (4)
Q8 47 (94) 3 (6) 49 (98) 1 (2)
Q9 49 (98) 1 (2) 49 (98) 1 (2)
Q10 42 (84) 8 (16) 37 (74) 13 (26)
[Link] 17

Q11 29 (58) 21 (42) 44 (88) 6 (12)

Q12 6 (12) 44 (88) 25 (50) 25 (50)

Note. n = 50: CR = Correct Response; IR = In-Correct Response

Research Question 2 (RQ2)

The second research question examined the extent to which the integrative PD influenced

teachers’ views of mathematical modeling based on their content area, grade level taught, and

teaching experience. To achieve this, we performed descriptive statistics with the average of pre-

post survey scores and factorial ANCOVA using the post-survey scores as our dependent

variable, the pre-survey scores as the covariate, and content area, grade level taught, and teaching

experience as our independent variables. We had to control for the effect of the pre-survey scores

by using it as a covariate because it could influence the dependent variable. All the assumptions

for conducting an ANCOVA including homogeneity of variances, normality of residuals, and

moderate linear correlation between the covariate and the dependent variable were tenable.

The ANCOVA (between-subjects factors: content area, grade level taught, and teaching

experience; covariate: pre-survey scores) revealed no main or interaction effects. The predicted

main effect of content area, F(2, 34) = 0.34, p = .72, ηp2 = .02.; or grade level taught, F(1, 34) =

0.81, p = .38, ηp2 = .02.; or teaching experience, F(2, 34) = 0.52, p = .60, ηp2 = .03, were not

statistically significant. Additionally, the interaction between content area, grade level taught,

and teaching experience were also statistically not significant, F(1, 34) = 0.08, p = .78, ηp2 = .01.

However, the descriptive statistics performed on the average pre-to-post survey scores with

respect to content area, grade level taught, and teaching experience revealed some interesting

results as depicted in Table 4. The results from Table 4 showed that teachers with T&E content,

6–8 grade band level, and 1–5 years of teaching experience had relatively higher average from

pre-to-post survey scores.

[Link] 18

Table 4

Average Scores of Content Area, Grade Level Band, and Teaching Experiences

Category n M SD
Content Area
Math 23 10.36 .75
T&E 13 10.41 .70
Science/STEM 14 10.21 .61
Grade Level Band
K–5 12 10.08 .47
6–8 38 10.41 .74
Teaching Experience
1–5 yrs 7 10.58 .86
6–15 yrs 23 10.15 .70
16+ yrs 20 10.48 .62
Note. T&E = Technology and Engineering education.

Research Question 3 (RQ3)

In exploring the third research question, we examined the extent to which the integrative

PD involving 3D printing applications and modeling influenced teachers’ future-plans to

implement or collaborate on mathematical modeling practices in their classrooms. Based on

teachers’ responses and feedback, 42 out of the 50 respondents (84%) expressed interest or the

likelihood of implementing modeling practices after the integrative PD session. Similarly, in

terms of their likeliness to collaborate on mathematical modeling practices, 43 out of the 50

respondents (86%) expressed a strong interest or possibility to do so beyond the integrative PD

session. Additionally, the descriptive statistics performed on the average pre-to-post survey

scores as represented in Table 5 showed that the mean scores were relatively higher for teachers’

who indicated they were likely to implement or collaborate on modeling practices.

[Link] 19

Table 5

Average Scores of Likeliness to Implement and Collaborate on Modeling

Category n M SD
Implement Modeling
Unlikely 8 9.88 .58
Likely 42 10.41 .69
Collaborate on Modeling
Unlikely 7 10.21 .75
Likely 43 10.34 .69

To that end, we again carried out a factorial ANCOVA using the post-survey scores as

our dependent variable, the pre-survey scores as the covariate, and implement modeling and

collaborate on modeling as our independent variables. Again, we had to control for the effect of

the pre-survey scores because it could influence the dependent variable. The assumptions for

conducting an ANCOVA including homogeneity of variances, normality of residuals, and

moderate linear correlation between the covariate and the dependent variable were tested for and

acceptable. The predicted main effect of implementing modeling was not statistically significant,

F(1, 45) = 0.64, p = .43, ηp2 = .01, nor was the predicted main effect of collaborating to teach

modeling, F(1, 45) = 3.67, p = .06, ηp2 = .08. Additionally, the interaction effect between

implementing and collaborating in regard to modeling was not statistically significant, F(1, 45) =

0.04, p = .85, ηp2 = .001.

Discussion

There were some limitations with this study that must be acknowledged. The participants

represented 25 school districts across a mid-Atlantic state, however, these results cannot be

generalized beyond that sample. While the sample had many diverse characteristics, it lacked

ethnic diversity. This lack of ethnic diversity reflects findings similar to previous studies

examining the national demographics of secondary T&E educators (Ernst & Williams, 2015) and
[Link] 20

statewide demographics of teachers where the PD was conducted (Fontana & Lapp, 2018).

Another limitation of this study is that it reflects a small snapshot of the participants’ change in

mathematical modeling knowledge and views from a one-day PD experience. It is unknown how

participating teachers’ mathematical modeling knowledge and views changed as they

implemented it in their classroom following the PD.

When examining the first research question there were identifiable differences in

participants’ knowledge about mathematical modeling as a result of the integrative PD. In

addition to revealing statistically significant differences among pre- and post-survey scores, this

analysis provided valuable insight about specific areas where teachers’ mathematical modeling

knowledge improved to answer the post-survey MMKS questions correctly. Questions 5, 7, 8,

11, and 12 showed positive increases. Notably, questions 5, 11, and 12 saw a 90%, 30%, and

38% increase respectively in correct responses. Question 5 of the MMKS asked, “Mathematical

modeling involves problem posing before problem solving.” Similarly, Question 11 and 12

inquired, “Mathematical modeling facilitates meaningful mathematical discourse, which elicits

evidence of student thinking” and “Mathematical modeling is accomplished by simply covering

the content standards in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2010) marked with

a ★” respectively.

With respect to question 5, by the end of the PD section and based on the information

presented at the modeling section, the participants understood that before one can solve a

modeling problem in mathematics, science, or engineering, they have to make certain

assumptions and choices based on the modeling process. Consequently, it became clear to most

of the participants that there is problem posing, where the modeler asks themselves questions

before trying to solve the problem. Regarding question 11, it became obvious to the participants
[Link] 21

that through the modeling process, students must describe, explain, and justify their thinking in

constructing specific reasons for solving problems. Concerning question 12, the participants

learned or realized quickly throughout the PD sections that modeling was not just covering

content standards in the Common Core marked with a ★ (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010).

Despite the positive gains among five or the seven MMKS questions, there were two that

demonstrated an increase in incorrect answers on the post-survey. Questions 3 and 10 saw a 4%

and 10% decrease respectively in correct answers. Question 3 asked, “The mathematical

modeling process is the same as mathematical problem-solving process.” With this question,

most of the teachers articulated their concern that they thought the modeling process was the

same as the problem-solving process because in all situations there is problem posing before

problem solving. The confusion could be as a result that the problem-solving process is often

described as a sequential, step-by-step technique, while the modeling process is an iterative

procedure. Although this makes it easy to distinguish between the two, there is actually no

simple plan to describe and define the universal method of problem-solving or modeling

processes (Niss et al., 2007; Powell & Baker, 2013).

Question 10 asked, “Mathematical modeling tasks are of low cognitive demand.” The full

group discussion at the end of the PD experience shed light on a possible rationale for this

negative change in view toward the cognitive demand of mathematical modeling tasks. Many of

the teachers expressed that they did not fully understand what mathematical modeling was prior

to the workshop and thought that it involved more advanced applications than what was

presented. We addressed their misconceptions by providing more advanced examples of

mathematical modeling applications such as the solenoid design challenge (Corum & Garofalo,

2018). Due to the time constraints of the PD, the grade appropriate and standards-based activities
[Link] 22

presented were more basic in terms of applying mathematical modeling using manipulatives and

user-friendly 3D design software. If teachers had the opportunity to participate in more advanced

mathematical modeling and engineering design challenges their views about this question may

have been different.

The second research question (RQ2) revealed that there were no statistically significant

gains in mathematical modeling knowledge based on teachers’ content area taught, grade level

taught, or years of teaching experience. Although the literature indicated that mathematical

modeling PD and curricular resources are limited, it is logical to hypothesize that mathematics

educators would have had a greater prior understanding of mathematical modeling, while their

counterparts would be expected to demonstrate significantly greater gains from the PD. Despite

no statistically significant difference found among these variables, descriptive results from Table

4 revealed greater increases in average pre-to-post survey scores for T&E, 6–8 grade level band,

and 1–5 years teachers. The scores for both the 6–8 grade level band and 1–5 years of teaching

experience were expected because modeling practices and resources are heavily emphasized in

these grade levels and the modeling standards are relatively new, hence early career teachers

should be more familiar with these modeling practices. The higher score for T&E teachers might

seem surprising given modeling is a practice, content standard, or benchmark in national

mathematics, science, and T&E standards (ITEEA, 2020; NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010; NGSS

Lead States, 2013). However, Litowitz (2014) found that on average, most T&E teacher

preparation programs only require college algebra and one additional mathematics content

course (no courses related to mathematics teaching methods). This lack of preparation may have

contributed to the higher survey gains given the natural connections among mathematical

modeling, 3D design, and 3D printing discussed in the literature review. These findings revealed
[Link] 23

that the lack of mathematical modeling in pre-service preparation, PD, and curricular resources

could have an impact on various STEM teachers’ modeling practices (Borromeo Ferri, 2018;

Blum, 2015).

The third research question (RQ3) did not find statistically significant changes in

teachers’ likeliness to implement mathematical modeling or collaborate with STEM education

colleagues on mathematically modeling. However, there were a large number of participants who

indicated they were likely to implement (84%) and collaborate (86%) on mathematical modeling

as a result of the PD. Additionally, results from Table 5 indicate that majority of the teachers

who expressed likeliness of implementing or collaborating on modeling practices scored higher

on average from pre-to-post survey scores. This suggests that the integrative nature of the PD did

have a positive effect on many teachers’ views about integrating mathematical modeling

practices, though not statistically significant.

Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study provide a positive outlook for interdisciplinary PD experiences

aiming to enhance educators’ knowledge and views about integrating mathematical modeling,

specifically through 3D printing. It supported ideas proposed in the literature by demonstrating

that 3D printing can help with teaching intangible mathematical modeling concepts, and that PD

can enhance teachers’ mathematical modeling knowledge (Blum, 2015; Kertil & Gurel, 2016).

This study is not suggesting that mathematical modeling be taught by T&E or science teachers in

lieu of mathematics educators. We advocate that collaboration among these educators is better

practice for providing authentic and rigorous STEM learning experiences that incorporate

mathematical modeling. This reflects criteria in the national T&E (ITEEA, 2020) and science

(NGSS Lead States, 2013) standards that advocate for the integration of mathematical modeling
[Link] 24

practices to help solve engineering and science challenges. Encouraging students to apply these

concepts in unison with other STEM content and practices will provide a more holistic and

rigorous learning experience. The findings from this study indicate that 3D printing, if used

appropriately, can serve as an invaluable tool for teaching abstract mathematical modeling

concepts to help solve authentic I-STEM design challenges. Furthermore, this study provides the

following implications to assist researchers and practitioners with investigating the impact of 3D

printing on teaching mathematical modeling.

Implications for Future Research

While this study showed the benefits of PD for enhancing teachers mathematical

modeling knowledge and views, it only examined a small snapshot of their changes in

knowledge and views. It would be beneficial to conduct a study investigating the longitudinal

impact of similar integrative PD experiences, especially after teachers had an opportunity to

implement the methods from the PD in their classroom. Future studies should be conducted to

examine the impact that longer integrative PD experiences have on teachers’ mathematical

modeling and 3D knowledge and views. More content could be covered, and extra time could be

provided to develop high-quality, standards-based mathematical modeling curricular materials

that were found to be an area of need according to the literature and the participant responses.

Implications for School Districts

In addition to teachers developing high-quality, standards-based mathematical modeling

curricular materials, curriculum directors should help lead this effort or find such resources to

support their teachers. Such materials can help teachers utilize mathematical modeling as a

vehicle to naturally integrate related concepts within authentic science and engineering contexts

(Kertil & Gurel, 2016). Some lessons that could be enhanced to intentionally emphasize
[Link] 25

mathematical modeling concepts while integrating 3D printing are the candy carton design

challenge (University of Nottingham & UC Berkeley, 2015), the cell phone case design

challenge (Sutton, Grubbs, & Ernst, 2014), the pop-pop boat design challenge (Crane, 1997), the

boat cargo design challenge (Mendez et al., 2019; Novak & Wisdom, 2018), and model or straw

rocket activities (Kertil & Gurel, 2016). As suggested by Kertil and Gurel (2016), teacher

preparation faculty in various STEM content areas should model how to intentionally integrate

mathematical modeling within the context of authentic science and T&E design challenges.

School districts also should provide preparation experiences (e.g., PD) for current teachers to see

how mathematical modeling can be integrated across content areas. Districts should also allow

integrative planning time for mathematics educators and teachers from other content areas to

collaborate (Kertil & Gurel, 2016). Ultimately, the integration of mathematical modeling will

depend on the teachers’ content knowledge in that area, training on innovative integrative ways,

access to quality curricular resources, and integrative planning time.

[Link] 26

References

Ang, A. K. (2010). Teaching and learning mathematical modeling with technology.

[Link]

Asempapa, R. S. (2020). The development of teachers’ knowledge of the nature of mathematical

modeling scale. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(2), 236–254.

Berry, J. (2019). The use of technology in developing mathematical modelling skills.

[Link]

[Link]/[Link]/ICTMT_5/ICTMT_5_CD/Strands/CD_Strand_6.htm#b2

Birman, B., Desimone, Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional development that

works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.

Blomhøj, M., & Jensen, T. H. (2003). Developing mathematical modelling competence:

Conceptual clarification and educational planning. Teaching Mathematics and Its

Applications, 22, 123–139.

Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we

do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on

Mathematical Education: Intellectual and attitudinal challenges (pp. 73–96). New York,

NY: Springer.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

Borromeo Ferri, R. (2018). Learning how to teach mathematical modeling in school and teacher

education. Picassoplatz, Switzerland: Springer.

Chan, C. M. E. (2013) Initial perspectives of teacher professional development on mathematical

modelling in Singapore: Conceptions of mathematical modelling. In G. Stillman, G.

[Link] 27

Kaiser, W. Blum, & J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching mathematical modelling: Connecting to

research and practice. International perspectives on the teaching and learning of

mathematical modelling. New York, NY: Springer.

Cirillo, M., Pelesko, J., Felton-Koestler, M. D., & Rubel, L. (2016). Perspectives on modeling in

school mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch & A. R. McDuffie (Eds.), Annual perspectives in

mathematics education 2016: Mathematical modeling and modeling mathematics (pp. 3–

16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2007). A theory of mathematical modelling in technological

settings. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and

applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study ( pp. 57–68). New York,

NY: Springer.

Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications [COMAP] and Society for Industrial and

Applied Mathematics [SIAM] (2016). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in

mathematical modeling education. [Link]

Corum, K., & Garofalo, J. (2018). Analyzing 3D-printed artifacts to develop mathematical

modeling strategies. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 78(2), 14–19.

Crane, H. R. (1997). How things work: The pop-pop boat. The Physics Teacher, 35(3), 176–177.

Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and

meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

[Link] 28

English, L., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In B. Sriraman & L. D.

English (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers–advances in

mathematics education (pp. 263–290). New York, NY: Springer.

Ernst, J. V., & Williams, T. O. (2015). The “who, what, and how conversation”: Characteristics

and responsibilities of current in-service technology and engineering educators. The

Journal of Technology Studies, 41(1), 48–56.

Fontana, J., & Lapp, D. (2018). New data on teacher diversity in Pennsylvania. Research for

Action. [Link]

pennsylvania/

Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents

provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school

classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.

Greefrath, G. (2011). Using technologies: New possibilities of teaching and learning modelling–

Overview. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, F. Borromeo Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in

teaching and learning mathematical modelling (pp. 301–304). New York, NY: Springer.

Gür, Y. (2015). Digital fabrication of mathematical models via low-cost 3D FDM desktop

printer. Acta Physica Polonica A, 128(2B), B-100–B-102.

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (2020). Standards for

technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM

education. [Link]

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.
[Link] 29

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Essex,

England: Pearson.

Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modelling

perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Lingefjärd, T. (2006). Faces of mathematical modelling, ZDM, 38(2), 96–112.

Litowitz, L. S. (2014). A curricular analysis of undergraduate technology & engineering teacher

preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 73–

84.

Maaβ, K. (2006). What are modelling competencies? ZDM, 38(2), 113–142.

Mendez, J., Baird, K., & Patino, G. (2019). Sinking and floating 2.0: Using 3D printers to excite

children in aftercare about science and engineering. Science and Children, 56(9), 66–71.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC:

Author. [Link] [Link]/assets/CCSSI _Math%[Link]

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.

Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education. The 14th

ICMI study (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Springer.

Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based learning on preservice

elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about

teaching science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412–432.

 [Link] 30

Paolucci, C., & Wessels, H. (2017). An Examination of preservice teachers’ capacity to create

mathematical modeling problems for children. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3),

330–344.

Powell, S. G., & Baker, K. R. (2013) Management science: The art of modeling with

spreadsheets. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough?

Investigating the impact of K–12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM

integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.

Sokolowski, A., & Rackley, R. (2011). Teaching harmonic motion in trigonometry: Inductive

inquiry supported by physics simulations. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(2),

45–54.

Sutton, K., Grubbs, M. E., & Ernst, J. (2014). Designing under constraints: Cell phone case

design challenge. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 74(2), 12–17

University of Nottingham & UC Berkeley (2015). Designing 3D products: Candy cartons.

Mathematics Assessment Project: Classroom Challenges.

[Link]

Wells, J. G., & Ernst, J. V. (2012/2015). Integrative STEM education. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia

Tech. [Link]

programs/[Link]

View publication stats