Investigating the Integration of 3D Printing Technologies in K-12 Schools B. Looney Montclair State University Abstract As it makes its way into classrooms (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014), the Maker Movement arguably contributes to a positive shift in teaching practice (cf. claims in NMC & CoSN, 2015), originally prompted by the integration of information technology tools at the end of the 20th century, from an emphasis on teacher-centered and highly structured lectures to lessons that are increasingly student-centered, hands-on and open-ended. This shift is important to notice, since it could require supportive measures in school policy and teacher education. One of the maker technologies seen most often in schools at present tends to be the 3D printer (Clapp et al., 2016; Martinez & Stager, 2013). This small-scale exploratory study (Yin, 2017) examined the use of 3D printers in four schools in New Jersey. Themes emerged suggesting that individual teachers often play a leading role in 3D printing integration, school organizational structure strongly influences diffusion of integration, and decisions made about where 3D printing fits into the curriculum could determine which students have access to this potentially important technology. Purpose My purpose was to investigate the integration of 3D printing technologies into K-12 teaching practice and begin to conceptualize the maker teacher. This study asked: What are the constraints that limit adoption and integration of 3D printing technology into the K-12 curriculum? What does 3D printing technology integration look like in schools? What are educators’ beliefs about 3D printing technology? Literature Review History of Makers and the Maker Movement • Makers are defined as creators with a love of exploration and play; they are imaginative builders and shapers who enjoy the learning process involved in producing new tools and exploring new kinds of manufacturing (Clapp et al., 2016; Dougherty et al., 2016; Honey & Kanter, 2013). • The Maker Movement is . . . a platform for creative expression that goes beyond traditional art forms and business models. It is a collaborative form of problem-solving, from the practical to the hypothetical, leading to new products, new ways of learning, and new ways of doing science. It is an intergenerational movement, bringing together young and old, as it has for many generations before us, to discover and learn about the world. (Dougherty et al., 2016, Introduction, para. 3) • The Maker Movement as a defined phenomenon spawned from the launch of Dale Dougherty’s magazine Make in 2005 (McCracken, 2015). • The beliefs and types of activity typical of makers existed long before Make: Magazine (McCracken, 2015): • The magazine Popular Science Monthly, first published in the early 1900s, enjoyed wide appeal among its initial audience—a generation of adults inspired by the unprecedented advances in technology that had taken place within their lifetime (Martinez & Stager, 2013; Schmoop University, 2017). • At that time, rapid industrialization had driven many rural families into the cities— and this influx, combined with massive waves of immigration, had caused urban populations to balloon (Semel & Sadovnik,1999). • The wealth gap between the rich and poor was immense, and concentrated private power—exemplified by the dominance of railroad corporations and trusts—had usurped popular sovereignty with a shift in power from the people to the economic elite, and the result was a weak democracy (Rahman, 2015; Virag, 2009). • Values such as individualism and Social Darwinism further eroded the common good by promoting self-reliance, competition and the belief that those who could not compete economically were at fault due to genetic inferiority (Virag, 2009). • The Maker Movement rose from a remarkably similar context: • By the end of the 20th century, use of the Internet had become ubiquitous and major advancements in computer technology, automation, and tools had rapidly changed how people communicated and goods were manufactured (White, 2013). • U.S. had transitioned from a manufacturing-based economy to a knowledge-based economy (White, 2012). • U.S. population had grown, once again due to immigration (White, 2012). • Changes in societal norms had allowed for non-traditional family configurations and lifestyle choices (Semel & Sadovnik, 1999). • Neoliberalism—a view of government power that champions free markets, privatization, and deregulation—began to heavily influence public policy, and values such as individualism and materialism reemerged as part of the national zeitgeist (Davies, 2017). • Davies (2017) contended that the Maker Movement is both a product and reaction to neoliberalism—without a doubt it is associated with self-reliance and entrepreneurship, but it also reflects a tendency toward community and social consciousness (Clapp et al., 2016; Davies, 2017; Dougherty et al., 2016). • Critics of the Maker Movement (Beuchley, 2013, 2014; Halverson & Sheridan, 2014; Vossoughi, Hooper, & Escude, 2016) have observed that the Maker Movement seems to be dominated by white and Asian upper-middle class males who like to play around with electronics. • Davies’ (2017) research found no consensus on what defines a maker, yet a common motivating factor in making is that sense of self- reliance that is associated with neoliberal ideology; however, it is often a kind of self-reliance that signifies a rejection of materialistic, consumer culture. • Iterative problem-solving process and sharing of ideas and inspiration seem to be the key elements of the makerspace (Davies, 2017).