This mixed-methods study focused on advanced student engagement, mathematics competence, and the influence of teachers in classrooms that used 3D printing to teach mathematics. Quantitative methods were used to understand changes in student perceptions of competence, engagement, and feelings regarding group work. Qualitative methods were used to explore teacher self-efficacy in teaching using Prototype Problem Solving and 3D modeling. The results indicated positive changes in student disengagement. It also highlighted the influence of teachers in implementing new pedagogy in the classroom as significant differences were found between groups of students based on school. The teacher participants indicated that in addition to learning how to use 3D modeling and printing in their classrooms, using Prototype Problem Solving Activities and the professional development that they received in this program inspired them to provide more creative opportunities when teaching mathematics in a heterogeneous classroom.
AjjanH.HartshorneR. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
2.
AlbionP. R.GibsonI. W. (2000). Problem-based learning as a multimedia design framework in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 315–326.
3.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning and assessing: A revision of bloom‘s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York.
4.
BergdahlN.ForsU.HernwallP.KnutssonO. (2018). The use of learning technologies and student engagement in learning activities. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN.1891-943X-2018.02-04
5.
BergdahlN.NouriJ.ForsU. (2020). Disengagement, engagement and digital skills in technology-enhanced learning. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 957–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-019-09998-W
6.
BrillJ. M.ParkY. (2008). Facilitating engaged learning in the interaction age taking a pedagogically-disciplined approach to innovation with emergent technologies. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 70–78.
7.
BronfenbrennerU. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
8.
BullockD. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211–237.
9.
CelikV.YesilyurtE. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/t05810-000
10.
ChamberlinS.MoonS. (2005). Model-eliciting activities as a tool to develop and identify creatively gifted mathematicians. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-393
11.
CoxbillE.ChamberlinS.WeatherfordJ. (2013). Using model-eliciting activities as a way to identify and develop mathematically creative students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(2), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353213480433
12.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
13.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
14.
DelcourtM.KinzieM. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 35–41.
15.
Diefes-DuxH. A.MooreT.ZawojewskiJ.ImbireP. K.FollmanD. (2004). A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: model-eliciting activities. In 34th Annual frontiers in education, 2004 (pp. 455–460). FIE2004https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2004-1408556
16.
Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (2000). Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education. Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm
FredricksJ.EcclesJ. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519–533. http://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.519
19.
FrielT.BrittenJ.ComptonB.PeakA.SchochK.VanTyleW. K. (2009). Using pedagogical dialogue as a vehicle to encourage faculty technology use. Computers & Education, 53(2), 300–307. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.002
20.
GrothL. A.DunlapK. L.KiddJ. K. (2007). Becoming technologically literate through technology integration in PK-12 preservice literacy courses: Three case studies. Reading Research and Instruction: The Journal of the College Reading Association, 46(4), 363–386. http://doi.org/10.1080/19388070709558476
21.
GunterG. A.ReevesJ. (2017). Online professional development embedded with mobile learning: An examination of teachers’ attitudes, engagement, and dispositions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1305–1317. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12490
22.
HamiltonE.LeshR.LesterF.BrilleslyperM. (2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics education research. Advances in Engineering Education. Summer, 1(2), 1–25.
23.
HobsonS. M.TrundleK. C.SackesM. (2010). Using a planetarium software program to promote conceptual change with young children. Journal of Science Education Technology, 19(2), 165–176. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9189-8
24.
HoustonW.PiersonM. (2008). Preparing teachers for a global society that is yet unknown to teacher educators. Teacher Education and Practice, 21(4), 479–481.
25.
HuffmanT. J.MentzerN. (2021). The impact of modeling-eliciting activities on high school student design performance. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-9557-x
26.
JaakkolaT.NurmiS. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271–283. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x
27.
JooY.ParkS.LimE. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.
28.
KaufmanJ. C.BeghettoR. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The 4 C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1037a0013688
29.
KerrB.McKayR. (2013). Searching for tomorrows innovators profiling creative adolescents. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752180
30.
KwanO. N.ParkJ. H.ParkJ. S. (2014). Providing students authentic learning experiences through 3D printing technology. In Learning experiences to promote mathematics learning yearbook 2014 (pp. 67-92). World Scientific Publishing.
31.
LeshR.DoerrH. (2003). Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematical problem solving, learning, and teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
ListerK.RobertsJ. (2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 130–140. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x
33.
MannE. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
34.
MatthewsD.GeistE. (2002). Technological applications to support children’s development of spatial awareness. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 321–336.
35.
Ottenbreit-LeftwichA.GlazewskiK.NewbyT.ErtmerP. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
PrenskyM. (2010). Teaching digital natives: partnering for real learning. Corwin.
38.
ReeveJ.JangH.CarrellD.JeonS.BarchJ. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
39.
SangG.ValckeD.Van BraakJ.TondeurJ. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviours with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010
40.
SawyerR. K. (2012). The science of human innovation explaining creativity (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
41.
SevindikT. (2006). The effect of smart classrooms on the academic achievement and behavior of students of high education. [Unpublished manuscript]. Frat University, Institute of Social Sciences, Turkey.
42.
SimonsonM.MaushakN. (1996). “Instructional technology and attitude change” Fischler College of Education: Faculty Books and Book Chapters Book 12. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/fse_facbooks/12.
43.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.FurrerC. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
44.
SkinnerE. A.WellbornJ. G.ConnellJ. P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22
45.
SparfM. (2021). I am Magic! Pupils’ engagement when designing in learning programming. Designs for Learning, 13(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.168
46.
SriramanB. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in math education?Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-389
47.
Szymanski, A., & Benus, M. (July, 2015). Gaming the classroom: Viewing learning through the lens of self- determination theory. International Journal of Game Based Learning, 5(3), 62-78. https://doi.org/10.1018/IJGBL.
48.
Szymanski, A., Croft, L., & Godor, B. (2018). Determining attitudes toward ability (DATA): A new tool for new understanding. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(1), 29-55. http://doi.org 10.1177/1932202X17738989
49.
Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1).
50.
TondeurJ.Van BraakJ.GuoyuanS.VoogtJ.FisserP.Ottenbreit-LeftwichA. (2012). Preparing student teachers to integrate ICT in classroom practice: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
51.
WittP. L.SchrodtP. (2006). The influence of instructional technology use and teacher immediacy on student affect for teacher and course. Communication Reports, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500309843
52.
WoodT.MerkelG.UerkwitzJ. (1996). Creating a context for talking about mathematical thinking. Educacao e Matematica, 4, 39–43.
53.
YilmazM. (2005). The effects of using educational technologies in teaching symmetry to success and attitude in 7th class of primary school. [Unpublished manuscript]. Marmara Unv, Institute of Educational Sciences, Turkey.
