3D Printing – Activity 3

At this point, no I would not invest in 3d printers for our school system. I do believe after all the evidence presented in this OER that 3D printing holds so much promise for the future of learning. We, as a school system, have invested selectively in 3D printing for students but I think there are factors that would prevent us from fully embracing this technology as a way to make teaching and learning visible. Budget restrictions will always be a factor in what tools get invested in, but I think for our purposes that the speed of and systemic expertise needed to fully adopt this technology into the classroom is what is holding us back. As was stated in earlier posts, the time needed to produce a final product from the printers we are able to afford today hinders our ability to invest further in this technology.

I would not invest. 3D printing isn't "there" just yet. Much like wearables, I'm under the belief that there is much room for improvement and I think investing in them is simply investing in a prototype. Unfortunately, it IS, still expensive, its clunky and unreliable and can be frustrating to dabble in it. This will change though. I also see 3D printing taking over many industries in the future once they've streamlined it. I do however think that investing in TIME playing, tinkering and using design/3D printing to be valuable. This can be achieved simply by visiting a design lab, maker lab in your area. There are professionals (most of the time) that will run through awesome sessions with you and your students. 3D printing is still too hyped for educational markets for them to be viable, in my opinion. I would however gladly take one with unlimited supply of plastic. :D

Yes, I would invest in creating a maker space with a 3D printer in our school. Reading through the Ontario curricula, most updated iterations place emphasis on ensuring authentic learning experiences and real-world applications. Paired with the need to cultivate 21st century learning skills, it's clear that a maker space is a hub of collaborative learning, allowing users to experiment and to create. They are built on the belief that sharing, collective problem solving, and task performance lead to better learning outcomes. Our school's Design Tech class finds real problems and attempts to design solutions. A student in the design tech class who was also in my English class noticed that our laptop power cords were always tangled (which we lovingly referred to as the "rat nest.") He borrowed a cord and attempted to design several different holders to help keep the cords separated. In the end, he designed two different prototypes. Neither of them have worked (yet) but he will continue designing next year, improving upon the previous designs until we have a product that works. The motivation to continue learning "after the class is finished" and the drive to seek out real-world problems and find authentic solutions is what 21st-century learning is about.

I believe that this week’s OER has made an excellent case for 3D printers in schools, a sentiment that appears to be well supported by those who work in schools and have access to 3D printers. I will approach this question from a medical education perspective. Throughout the OER, the case has been made that the potential applications of 3D printing in healthcare are numerous. I would agree with this, and it’s amazing to think that one day a custom replacement organ might be printed for me if I need it. In terms of medical education however, I am reminded of the example of the cost to print a water bottle, and that it isn’t always necessary economically responsible to print what already exists from a 3D printer. I am less convinced that a 3D printer would be a great tool in medical education. Currently, we purchase a number of intricate and highly specialized anatomical and SIM models that are used by medical learners to develop their knowledge and skills. I think in the majority of instances, a 3D printer would only be replicating what already exists in their classrooms. On the flip side however, if they are not exposed to a tool such as this, I wonder if they will employ it in their future practice and research. Perhaps the return on investment may not be immediate in this case, but rather set a framework for future innovation.

YES. That is my first thought on whether I would like to invest. For any educational institution, students getting a hang of this future technology will be interesting. Like Dan Bosse mentioned in his comment, students should focus on the design aspect. Students can further research on the 3D printing materials. So if , as a head of the institutions I had to decide , I would have a few 3D printers in my school that will initiate the students to this technology and provide a basic knowledge for further research.

Based on what I have read on both the group’s OER and the comments from other students, I would not yet invest in a comprehensive setup for my school or business. Instead, I would focus on using existing infrastructure like community hack-spaces and printer for hire services like 3dhubs.com. However, once lower priced options are available I will be much more inclined to invest into this type of technology. As it stands, setup and maintenance costs are too high for the benefits of having one in a particular classroom or school. Hopefully we will start to see curriculum or entire courses designed specifically for 3D modelling, at which point it will make more sense to buy them. There is much value for educational outcomes in terms of designing in 3D and then bringing those designs to life. At a school level, I would certainly consider investing into one of the smaller options. Designing and printing things like school emblems would make an excellent extra-curricular club and have the potential to be sold to cover the costs of materials. Overall, I think we will see them being used extensively in the years to come. The quicker that they become more affordable, the more you will begin seeing them across schools and faculties.

3D printing is certainly an exciting and important new technology with real world applications. The design and printing process has the potential to facilitate the development of problem solving skills. It exemplifies the constructionist principles of Papert http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html. In one of the videos presented in the OER, the narrator describes 3D printing as bridging the the abstract and the real world. This is its most important value as a tool to promote learning. It seems however that many people are speaking of 3D printing as if it can bring students to a deeper understanding of a multitude of concepts across all content areas. I am cautious about taking this approach. It is amazing to see something produced right before your eyes, but we need to keep the “cool” factor in check and consider carefully what its applications are. I believe the benefits are mostly related to design courses, and some science areas such as physics. To implement 3D printing in English, social sciences and languages, for example, seems like a stretch. Here is an interesting article I found written by someone in the industry: Why 3D Printing Is Overhyped (I Should Know, I Do It For a Living) http://gizmodo.com/why-3d-printing-is-overhyped-i-should-know-i-do-it-fo-508176750. Cost is a big concern. Not so much the initial capital cost of the printer, but the ongoing cost of the filament. I was shocked at the cost of the the small spools of plastic. We will likely see a drop in prices as the technology becomes more commonplace. Also, repairs would be costly when the machine break down. So, with these concerns in mind, I would not advise a widespread adoption of the technology in every school, but a slower rollout, beginning with the purchase of a few units to be shared among a number of schools in the board. These itinerant machines would travel from school to school, remaining at each site for 2-3 weeks. With a pre-planned schedule, schools would know when the printer would be there and plan projects accordingly with students. The program would be review after a year or two and if it was deemed feasible and advantageous, the board would be advised to consider purchasing 3D printer for individual schools.

I think if I were a superintendent I would not invest heavily in 3D printers as there are still not that cheap, still developing rapidly and there are still not enough teachers who have the interest and skills to use them in their learning activities. The costs of training teachers to use the software and hardware would likely be spread too thin over too many people to be effective and the machines would be out of date rather quickly. Instead, I would probably have a technology integration grant program for capital purchases where schools/department heads/teachers could write an application for a portion of a pool of funds. The application would detail: 1) learning activities and goals the applicants would use technology and/or training for 2) what skills and training the applicants possess to make the technology work as well as timelines for implementation 3) local needs at the school level. This process (or one like it) would ensure that motivated and qualified teachers and departments would have access to make exciting programs happen and instead of having blanket 3D printers, virtual/augmented reality or games for learning programs dumped on teachers who aren't interested or prepared to use them. I am not arguing that this process would or should replace standard technology budget for schools but if there is money available in the district budget for capital purchases, setting some of it aside for interested and qualified teachers and departments could ensure more bang for the buck in terms of in-class use and alignment with curricular outcomes. (@mme_dl 's board's central 3D printer at a regional resource centre is another possibility to allocate resources more effectively in the short term so 3D printing is available to students).

After completing your OER, I would choose not to invest in 3D printing technology at my schools. The decision came down to whether the motivational, and practical value for students overcame the cost of purchasing, and maintaining a 3D printer at the school. As I read the case study, I agree with the observation that the 3D printer itself did not do much to change your pedagogy aside from giving students and opportunity to see their creation full completed. It may interest them further and motivate them to pursue 3D printing or design work in the future, but I believe there are other ways to get that done. Students could be shown ways to send their 3D model off to be printed for a cost in order to save the school money from having to constantly repair or buy materials. In addition, since the printing technology is new, it may be difficult to repair if it gets damaged, and costly to maintain if different materials need to be consistently brought in to create student designed objects. After reading about the technology and the time it takes to produce a 3D model, it may also be necessary to procure multiple printers to make printer feasible for multiple drafting classes. At this current time, the cost to printing simply outweigh the benefits, even though the potential for the technology is definitely big.

After completing your OER I believe that I would invest in the opportunity to purchase several 3D printers for a school. There is an undeniable advantage to actually producing a 3D model at the end of a design assignment. Given some of the cautions addressed in the OER several considerations need to be taken - namely Professional Development for staff and trainmen for students. Even the easiest programs can be tedious and time consuming and are not appropriate for all students and all age groups. That being said, I believe that all students could experience some level of success with a #D printing project. Numerous 3D printers come with their own native applications that allow users to choose from pre-existing plans in order to create a 3D model. The expectation of students will depend on the course and the age group.