Next Article in Journal
Development of a Multi-Platform AI-Based Software Interface for the Accompaniment of Children
Previous Article in Journal
Telerehabilitation Strategy for University Students with Back Pain Based on 3D Animations: Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
MTI
Volume 9
Issue 9
10.3390/mti9090087
mti-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

3D Printing as a Multimodal STEM Learning Technology: A Survey Study in Second Chance Schools

by
Despina Radiopoulou
,
Antreas Kantaros
,
Theodore Ganetsos
and
Paraskevi Zacharia
*
Department of Industrial Design and Production Engineering, University of West Attica, Egaleo, 122 41 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9(9), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090087
Submission received: 28 June 2025 / Revised: 19 August 2025 / Accepted: 20 August 2025 / Published: 24 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study explores the integration of 3D printing technology by adult learners in Greek Second Chance Schools (SCS), institutions designed to address Early School Leaving and promote Lifelong Learning. Grounded in constructivist and experiential learning theories, the research examines adult learners’ attitudes toward 3D printing technology through a hands-on STEM activity in the context of teaching scientific literacy. The instructional activity was centered on a physics experiment illustrating Archimedes’ principle using a multimodal approach, combining 3D computer modeling for visualization and design with tangible manipulation of a printed object, thereby offering both digital and Hands-on learning experiences. Quantitative data was collected using a structured questionnaire to assess participants’ perception toward the 3D printing technology. Findings indicate a positive trend in adult learners’ responses, finding 3D printing accessible, interesting, and easy to use. While expressing hesitation about independently applying the technology in the future, overall responses suggest strong interest and openness to using emerging technologies within educational settings, even among marginalized adult populations. This work highlights the value of integrating emerging technologies into alternative education frameworks and offers a replicable model for inclusive STEM education and lays the groundwork for further research in adult learning environments using innovative, learner-centered approaches.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Early leaving from education is defined by the European Union as the phenomenon of young people aged 18–24 who have completed, at most, lower secondary education and are no longer enrolled in any educational or training program [1]. This is a major concern across Europe, as it not only affects individuals’ employment prospects and social participation but also challenges the cohesion and productivity of society at large. In Greece, early leaving is interpreted as the failure to complete the nine years of compulsory education [2]. According to recent Eurostat data [3], 3% of individuals aged 18–24 fall into this category. Furthermore, the 2021 national census recorded nearly two million people of all ages holding only a Primary School Leaving Certificate, out of a population of approximately 10.5 million [4]. This data highlights a significant proportion of the population with limited formal education, underscoring the need for targeted adult learning initiatives.
To address this educational gap, the European Commission proposed the establishment of Second Chance Schools (SCSs) as part of its broader Lifelong Learning strategy [5]. Institutionalized in Greece in 1997, SCSs are designed for adults over the age of 18 who did not complete compulsory education. These schools aim to provide learners with essential knowledge, skills, and qualifications that support their reintegration into the social and professional spheres.
The curriculum in SCSs differs from that of formal secondary education. It is flexible, learner-centered, and promotes the integration of formal, non-formal, and informal learning methods. Core areas of instruction include literacy, numeracy, digital competence, environmental and scientific literacy, cultural-aesthetic education, and social skills [6,7]. It is generally acknowledged that the characteristics of underaged students are significantly different from those of adult trainees, therefore adults’ educational needs call for approaches that differ from those used in the education of children and adolescents [8].
Adult education in SCSs is guided by principles such as participatory learning, relevance to learners’ experiences, and collaborative engagement [9,10]. These are presented in Figure 1 and inform the design of learner-centered STEM activities.
Among the core subjects taught in SCSs is Scientific Literacy, which enables learners to understand and evaluate science-related issues and make informed decisions in their personal and civic lives [11]. In the context of teaching Scientific Literacy, approaches such as group work and product-based learning are recommended [11], as shown in Figure 2. These align well with the hands-on nature of 3D printing activities.
In educational practice, Scientific Literacy is usually taught using the traditional transmission model, while in rare cases philosophical approaches and scientific dialogs are used. Considering the challenges associated with comprehending physics, which adversely affects the scientific literacy of adult learners, the vital role of scientific literacy for a nation’s citizens, and the well-established premise that instructional methodologies significantly impact learner outcomes, it becomes evident that the current pedagogical approach to Scientific Literacy in Second Chance Schools requires substantive reform. This reform should be oriented towards learner-centered, experiential, and inquiry-based pedagogies, such as STEM educational method.
Within this educational context, 3D printing emerges as a promising tool for enhancing STEM education in Second Chance Schools. Its capacity to support hands-on, learner-centered activities resonates strongly with the principles of adult education and the aims of Scientific Literacy. By bridging theoretical knowledge with real-world application, 3D printing fosters engagement, experimentation, and critical thinking—skills essential for adult learners re-entering formal education.
Emphasizing learning by direct interaction with tools, materials, and real-world applications, experiential STEM education develops elevated conceptual knowledge and practical abilities [12]. Within this framework, 3D printing becomes an enabling tool that improves hands-on learning by letting students create, build, and manipulate actual models made from digital blueprints [13]. Unlike conventional teaching approaches that mostly focus on theoretical explanations and static representations, 3D printing presents an interactive, iterative process whereby students actively develop and improve knowledge by practical experimentation [14]. This is particularly valuable in second-chance education environments, where experiential learning helps rekindle enthusiasm in STEM fields and bridge knowledge gaps [15]. By encouraging curiosity, problem-solving, and creative inquiry, 3D printing fosters a sense of ownership over the learning process, building learners’ confidence [16]. Moreover, it promotes multidisciplinary connections by integrating engineering design, scientific reasoning, and mathematical thinking into coherent projects, supporting the development of critical thinking, flexibility, and digital literacy—skills essential for both academic and professional advancement [17].
This study adopts a multimodal learning framework by integrating digital 3D design (computer visualization) with physical interaction (3D-printed models), thus reinforcing learners’ understanding through both virtual and tactile modalities.
While previous studies have emphasized the pedagogical benefits of constructivist and STEM-based approaches, this paper focuses specifically on adult learners’ acceptance of 3D printing technology. To align with this focus, we have streamlined the theoretical background and emphasized the relevance of user attitudes. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to examine learners’ perceptions of 3D printing technology in the context of Greek Second Chance Schools (SCSs). While prior research has explored 3D printing in mainstream and higher education environments, the application of such technologies in alternative adult learning settings—particularly those serving socially and educationally marginalized populations—remains underexplored. This study contributes to filling this gap by investigating how a multimodal instructional design combining digital modeling and tangible experimentation can be received by adult learners re-entering formal education through the SCS system.
Recent research on technology acceptance models (TAMs) and user perceptions of 3D printing highlights factors such as perceived ease of use, usefulness, and behavioral intention to adopt the technology. These insights are critical for understanding how adult learners engage with emerging tools in educational environments.
The research problem addressed in this study is: How do adult learners in Second Chance Schools perceive and respond to the integration of 3D printing technology in STEM education?
To investigate this, the study poses the following research questions:
  • What are the attitudes of adult learners toward 3D printing technology?
  • How do learners perceive the usability and accessibility of 3D printing technology?
  • What is the behavioral intention of learners to use 3D printing in the future?
By adopting a hands-on STEM activity centered on a physics experiment, this study provides empirical data on adult learners’ responses to 3D printing. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on inclusive and technology-enhanced education for marginalized populations.

2. Foundations in Adult Learning and STEM Education

2.1. Theoretical Foundations for Adult STEM Learning

A substantial body of research has shaped the development of adult education as a distinct academic field. Foundational contributions from theorists such as Dewey, Rogers, Freire, and Habermas have informed key educational models, including Andragogy (Knowles), Education for Social Change (Freire), and Transformative Learning (Mezirow) [8,18].
Rather than a detailed analysis, a concise overview is provided to contextualize the instructional design of this study. Andragogy emphasizes that adults are self-directed learners, bring rich life experiences to the learning process, seek relevance to their personal and professional lives, and are internally motivated [9]. Education for Social Change views learning as a means of empowering marginalized groups and fostering democratic participation, with dialog at the core of instruction [19]. Transformative Learning focuses on critical self-reflection and the re-evaluation of deeply held assumptions, often triggered by challenging life experiences [19,20]. Each theory offers practical insights for educators, which are presented in Table 1, according to Tsiboukli & Phillips, Kokkos, and Mezirow [8,19,20].
Although no single theory captures the full complexity of adult learning [8], common principles emerge: experience-based learning, learner engagement at all stages, and a shift from teacher-centered to facilitator-centered instruction [19]. These shared foundations offer a solid base for designing inclusive, meaningful educational experiences in adult learning contexts such as Second Chance Schools
In parallel, it is essential to consider how physics education intersects with adult learning. Early experiences with physics can influence later interest in science and the development of scientific literacy [21]. Physics holds a critical place in education due to its foundational role in understanding natural phenomena and supporting technological innovation [22]. Despite its importance, physics is often perceived as abstract and difficult [23], resulting in low student engagement and poor academic performance [24,25].
Recent assessments underscore this challenge. For example, the 2022 PISA evaluation revealed that only 63% of Greek students reached at least Level 2 in science, compared to the OECD average of 76%. Also, only 1% achieved top-level performance (Levels 5 or 6), far below the OECD average of 7%. These results highlight the urgent need for more effective instructional strategies in science education [26].
One critical factor contributing to low performance is the teaching approach. Assem et al. [22] emphasize that instructional methods strongly influence students’ interest and achievement in physics. Historically, physics relied on the transmission model, where knowledge was passively received. This has gradually evolved, first through discovery learning, and more recently toward the constructivist model, which emphasizes active participation and concept reconstruction [24].
According to the principles of constructivism, students arrive with pre-existing, or else, alternative ideas that must be acknowledged and challenged through meaningful activities such as group work, hands-on experiments, and guided inquiry [27]. The teacher’s role shifts from transmitter to facilitator [28], supporting learners in building understanding through exploration and reflection. The characteristics of the constructivist learning model are presented in Figure 3.
When applied to adult learners, constructivist strategies align well with the principles of inclusive education. They offer a compelling pedagogical foundation—particularly in STEM contexts—where abstract concepts like those in physics can be made tangible and relevant through active exploration. This alignment is well supported by the existing literature [29,30,31]. Complementing this view, numerous studies, such as those by Zahara et al. [32] and Potvin & Hasni [33], demonstrate the effectiveness of constructivist-based instructional strategies for teaching physics in school, including inquiry experimentation, problem solving tasks, demonstrations, collaborative projects, visual aids, laboratory experiments, and digital simulations [32,33].

2.2. STEM and 3D Printing as Tools for Physics Learning

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) represents an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to education that reflects real-world problem-solving [34,35,36]. While definitions vary, a growing consensus recognizes STEM as both a framework encompassing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and a pedagogical model centered on active, student-driven learning [35,36,37]. For the purposes of this study, STEM is approached as a classroom-based instructional model that blends multiple subject areas through the use of technology-enhanced, experiential activities.
Unlike traditional teacher-centered instruction, STEM pedagogy fosters critical thinking, creativity, and real-life application of knowledge. According to McDonald [38], effective STEM instruction includes a variety of methods, as presented in Figure 4. These strategies not only enhance conceptual understanding but also promote problem-solving skills, collaboration, and learner autonomy, principles that align closely with educational constructivist theory.
In the context of physics education, which often presents conceptual challenges, constructivist-STEM methods, such as experimentation and digital modeling, are particularly effective. These approaches help restructure learners’ pre-existing ideas through active engagement [27]. Studies confirm these approaches improve motivation, self-efficacy, and academic performance [32,39,40].
Technology plays a pivotal role in STEM learning. Tools like augmented reality, simulations, 3D printing, and robotics (e.g., Arduino, micro: bit) support exploration and iterative design, enhancing digital literacy and scientific reasoning [41,42,43,44,45,46]. These technologies also promote inclusion by engaging marginalized learners through adaptive, accessible platforms [47].
Despite its benefits, STEM remains underutilized in adult education, particularly in SCSs. Scientific literacy in SCSs often lacks interdisciplinarity and practical application [48,49]. Innovative methods, such as philosophical frameworks, cultural narratives, and Scientific Dialogic Gatherings (SDGs), have shown promise in enriching conceptual understanding and critical thinking [50,51], yet few studies explore STEM-based instruction in these settings.
This gap is significant given the increasing societal demand for STEM competencies in areas like climate change, health, and digital security. Scientific literacy supports informed democratic participation [52,53], while transferable skills, including critical thinking, collaboration, and digital fluency, benefit all learners, especially those re-entering education through non-traditional routes [34].
In this context, integrating the STEM methodology into the scientific literacy curriculum of SCSs holds transformative potential. It aligns with adult learning principles by offering relevant, hands-on, and participatory learning experiences. Among the most impactful tools in this context is 3D printing, which provides not only conceptual clarity but also motivation, digital competence, and a sense of ownership over the learning process.
These benefits are especially vital for marginalized populations, where equitable access to STEM education fosters deeper engagement and empowerment [47]. By embedding technologies like 3D printing into SCS curricula, educators can create inclusive environments that support both academic growth and personal development.
3D printing emerged as a transformative fabrication technology in various fields, including education. It enables the production of three-dimensional items from digital models via an additive layering technique, thereby improving visualization, prototyping, and experiential learning [54]. In STEM education, 3D printing serves as a conduit between theoretical knowledge and practical applications, enabling learners to interact with concepts in a concrete manner. This technology enhances spatial reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, whether utilized in chemistry to model molecular structures, in mathematics to investigate geometric correlations, or in engineering for prototyping.
Moreover, 3D printing supports inquiry-based and project-oriented instructional methodologies, making it particularly effective for adult learners in alternative education environments [55]. Its interactive nature encourages exploration and iterative learning, which are key to developing scientific understanding.
Beyond its instructional value, 3D printing cultivates essential digital and technical competencies for the modern workforce. It promotes computational thinking, iterative problem-solving, and design-oriented learning—essential skills for 21st-century professions. Adult learners, especially those with less prior exposure to STEM disciplines, might gain from its interactive characteristics, which facilitate the bridging of knowledge gaps through direct involvement.
Its adaptability also supports self-directed, differentiated learning, enabling learners to advance at their own pace while gaining practical experience in digital fabrication, design, and problem-solving. By integrating 3D printing into adult STEM education, instructors can foster a more inclusive, confidence-building, and skill-oriented learning environment that encourages sustained engagement with technical discipline [56].

2.3. Experiential Learning Models and Technology Acceptance

The integration of 3D printing into STEM education among adults is supported by constructivist and experiential learning theories that emphasize active engagement, hands-on exploration, and learning through real-world experience. Rooted in Piaget’s constructivist theory [57] and expanded by Vygotsky’s social constructivism [58], this approach suggests that learners deepen their understanding by connecting new experiences to prior knowledge.
Within this framework, 3D printing serves as a powerful tool for constructing knowledge, enabling students to visualize, test, and refine physical models based on theoretical ideas. Rather than passively receiving information, adult learners actively engage with STEM content, thereby reinforcing comprehension through practice. This process is further supported by problem-based and inquiry-oriented teaching strategies that focus on critical reasoning, iterative processes, and reflective practice [59].
Kolb’s experiential learning theory also validates the use of 3D printing into adult STEM instruction [60]. His four-stage process of learning—concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation—aligns well with iterative processes of designing and manufacturing 3D objects. Through hands-on practice, learners acquire both technical skills and deeper conceptual understanding. This approach is particularly effective for adults, who benefit from task-oriented instruction that connects directly to their prior experiences and career goals [61]. By using earners’ existing knowledge and engaging them in authentic problem-solving, 3D printing fosters both cognitive and technical skill development across STEM disciplines.
Experiential learning models such as Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Project-Based Learning (PjBL) further enhance the effectiveness of 3D printing in adult education. These models emphasize active student involvement in solving real-world challenges through inquiry and collaboration. For SCS learners, many of whom have faced prior educational barriers, such approaches offer meaningful and empowering learning experiences.
In the context of PBL, students face real challenges that involve critical thinking, experimentation, and iterative optimization [62]. The integration of 3D printing greatly complements this process by allowing students to visualize, test, and iteratively improve on their work through experiential learning. For example, physics students might design and print bridge models to explore structural strength, force transmission, and material optimization, transforming abstract physics concepts into tangible learning outcomes [63].
PjBL, which involves extended, interdisciplinary projects, also benefits significantly from 3D printing. While PBL is targeted on specific challenges, PjBL creates teamwork among students taking part in prolonged activities that result in real products. For adult learners, especially those in SCSs, 3D adds a sense of responsibility and ownership to the learning process, enhancing motivation and self-efficacy [64,65]. For instance, environmental science students can make water filters by integrating ideas of fluids dynamics and properties of materials, while math students can fabricate geometric shapes, hence making STEM content directly applicable through experiential learning [66].
The iterative nature of 3D printing where students revise designs based on feedback and performance closely mirrors engineering and scientific practices. This process provides valuable experience in innovation and problem-solving [67], while also cultivating essential 21st-century skills such as digital literacy, creativity, and collaboration. By embedding 3D printing into PBL and PjBL frameworks, educators can create interactive, skill-based learning environments that boost comprehension, motivation, and employability.
Understanding how learners perceive and engage with emerging technologies is critical for successful integration in educational settings. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) offer robust frameworks for analyzing user attitudes, particularly in relation to perceived usefulness, ease of use, and behavioral intention to adopt new tools.
In the context of 3D printing, research have identified key predictors of adoption, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and behavioral intention ([68,69,70,71]). Slegers et al. [69] and Holzmann et al. [70] found that performance expectancy and positive attitudes are significant predictors of intention to use 3D printing, while effort expectancy and social influence may play a more limited role. Similarly, Schniederjans [71] reported that facilitating conditions and perceived usefulness are key drivers of adoption in manufacturing contexts.
This study extends these insights to adult learners in SCSs, a population not previously examined in the literature. These learners often have limited prior exposure to digital technologies and may approach new tools with caution or skepticism. In this context, understanding their perceptions is critical for designing effective interventions. The use of the UTAUT model [72] in related studies has consistently shown that constructs such as performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and attitude toward technology are strong predictors of behavioral intention across diverse learning environments.
By incorporating these theoretical models, this study not only evaluates the pedagogical impact of 3D printing but also explores learners’ acceptance and future engagement with the technology. This dual focus allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how adult learners respond to innovation in educational contexts and informs strategies for promoting sustained use and digital inclusion.

3. Design and Implementation of a 3D Printing-Based STEM Learning Activity

3.1. Development of the STEM Learning Activity Using 3D Printing

In the framework of a wider survey researching the implementation of STEM methodology in teaching Science Literature at SCSs, a small boat was fabricated using 3D printing technology as part of an experiment designed to explore the concept of buoyancy. This activity provided a meaningful context for introducing 3D printing technology to adult learners, with the objective of investigating their attitudes and perceptions regarding this emerging technology, as well as assessing its potential application within the framework of adult education.
Prior to fabrication, learners were introduced to the digital 3D model using SolidWorks 2019 software, which allowed them to visualize the geometry, predict buoyancy behavior, and engage in digital design thinking. This visualization process complemented the later hands-on manipulation of the printed object, supporting conceptual understanding through dual channels.
The experiment involves using a 3D-printed PLA boat to explore and demonstrate the principles of buoyancy and Archimedes’ principle in a hands-on, visual, and measurable way. The boat, fabricated using Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology, features a central cavity specifically designed to hold small weights. When the boat is placed on water, it displaces a certain volume of liquid equal to its own weight—this initial displacement keeps it afloat. The scientific core of the experiment is revealed when additional weights are placed inside the cavity: as the load increases, the boat submerges further, displacing more water. According to Archimedes’ principle, the upward buoyant force acting on the boat is equal to the weight of the water displaced. By measuring how much the water level rises or calculating the volume displaced by the submerged portion of the hull, students can correlate added mass to displaced volume and verify Archimedes’ law in practice. This type of experiment is particularly valuable in educational settings as it provides a tangible demonstration of abstract physical laws, while also introducing students to applied 3D printing and basic fluid mechanics. It may also lead to constructive discussions about material density, design for flotation, and why imperfections in FFF printing—such as layer gaps or non-sealed seams—might cause water ingress or affect overall buoyancy, which is especially relevant if the boat begins to take on water over time. Figure 5 depicts scenes from the actual experiment.
With the a priori consideration of fabricating an item that would be able to float, both on its own as well as with an added weight on it, the item should be as light as possible while being completely “watertight”, with the water not being able to penetrate through its outer surface and cause submersion. Appropriate settings, being inserted in the slicer software, resulted in a fabricated item of low weight, while having solid layers, preventing water penetration while promoting floatation. Figure 6 depicts the final stage of the slicing process prior to the fabrication.
More specifically, the fabricated item was 120 mm long, 70 mm wide, and 40 mm tall. Solidworks (Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) 2019 software was used for the 3D design of the item. An Anycubic (Shenzhen, China) I3 Mega FFF 3D printer was used with the raw material being PLA during the fabrication stage as depicted in Figure 6. Figure 7 depicts the 3D-printed item upon the completion of the fabrication process.

3.2. Methodological Design and Development of the Survey Tool

To explore adult learners’ attitudes toward the use of 3D printing, a study was carried out at the Second Chance School of Agioi Anargyroi in Attica, Greece. The aim was to assess participants’ perceptions of this innovative technology.
As a first step, all participants attended a structured presentation introducing the basic principles and educational applications of 3D printing, as illustrated in Figure 8. Following the presentation, a small boat was printed in real time in order to be used in a physics experiment in the future and, finally, a printed questionnaire was distributed and completed in person. The instrument included a series of statements designed to capture participants’ views on the usability, relevance, and future use of 3D printing. Responses were recorded using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement.
To evaluate participants’ perceptions of 3D printing in an educational context, this study employed a structured questionnaire adapted from a previously validated instrument developed by Chatzoglou and Michailidou [68]. Their original research examined individuals’ attitudes toward 3D printing and their intention to use the technology in workplace settings. In their model, the dependent variable was the intention to adopt 3D printing, which they sought to explain through a set of theoretically grounded predictors. The internal consistency of the instrument was high, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.817 to 0.941 across key factors, further supporting its suitability for use in this study.
Given the demographic characteristics of the participants in the current research, particularly their educational level and employment status, the focus was placed on two main predictors: attitude toward 3D printing and perceived ease of use. These were selected as the most relevant variables for assessing the likelihood of future engagement with the technology among adult learners in Second Chance Schools. The original questionnaire was first translated into Greek, with careful attention to clarity and accessibility to ensure comprehension by all participants. The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first parts collected demographic information (age, gender, occupation), and the second comprises eight statements divided into three categories (with two or three items for each category as in previous studies [68,73,74]): participants’ attitudes toward 3D printing (items 1–2), their perceptions of the ease of use or ease of learning to use 3D printers (items 3–5), and their intention to use the technology in the future (items 6–8). As recommended by Papanastasiou, all were positively framed so that higher scores reflected more favorable attitudes [75]. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale as follows: 0—strongly disagree, 1—disagree, 2—neutral, 3—agree, and 4—strongly agree. The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix A.

3.3. Sampling Method and Participants’ Characteristics

This study used a non-probability sampling method, specifically convenience sampling [76], where participants were chosen based on their availability and willingness to participate, without applying strict selection criteria [75]. This approach is commonly used in both social and educational research [76,77].
The research was conducted in February 2025 at the Second Chance School of Agioi Anargyroi in Attica, Greece. A total of 35 adult learners participated in the study, including 17 men and 18 women. All participants had completed only primary education and had not fulfilled the nine years of compulsory schooling required in Greece.
Participants ranged in age from 22 to 70 years, with nearly half (48.6%) falling within the 30–45 age group. Regarding employment status, 37.1% were either unemployed or retired, while 42.9% were employed in the private sector, mainly in manual labor roles. A detailed breakdown of demographic data is provided in Table 2.

3.4. Multimodal Learning Integration: From Digital Modeling to Physical Manipulation

This STEM activity was intentionally designed as a multimodal learning experience, combining digital and physical engagement to support deeper conceptual understanding. Adult learners first encountered the core scientific concept—Archimedes’ principle—through a visual demonstration of a 3D-modeled boat, designed using SolidWorks software. This step introduced them to the digital design environment, enabling them to observe geometric properties, anticipate functionality, and visualize buoyancy effects before fabrication.
Following this, learners directly engaged with the tangible, printed version of the boat in a hands-on experiment. This phase allowed them to manipulate the object, test hypotheses, measure buoyancy changes, and observe scientific principles in action. The transition from digital design to physical experimentation facilitated multiple modes of cognition—visual, spatial, tactile—and supported knowledge construction through iterative interaction.
This sequential combination of computer-based modeling and hands-on manipulation exemplifies a multimodal pedagogical strategy that fosters both spatial reasoning and practical scientific inquiry. By engaging learners through both virtual and physical modalities, the activity promoted stronger cognitive connections, greater learner autonomy, and enhanced confidence in working with emerging technologies.

4. Data Analysis—Descriptive Overview of Questionnaire Results

To understand participants’ perceptions of 3D printing, a structured questionnaire was administered. The analysis of responses revealed encouraging results, highlighting both the reliability of the instrument and the positive reception of the technology among adult learners.
The internal reliability of the questionnaire responses was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which reached a value of 0.822 for the entire set of responses, presented in Table 3. This value is considered acceptable, as it exceeds the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7 [78] and is generally regarded as high according to the literature, surpassing the 0.8 benchmark [75,77].
As previously mentioned, responses were grouped into three key categories “attitude toward 3D printing”, “perceived ease of use”, and “intention to use”. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), and the results are summarized in Table 4 and visualized in Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12
For each category, we calculated the average of the item means, along with the corresponding standard deviation to reflect score variability, and Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal reliability. The results, presented in Table 5, show high reliability across all categories.
Among the three categories, “attitude” received the highest average score, indicating a generally positive perception of 3D printing. Although responses varied somewhat, the overall sentiment was favorable. Regarding “perceived ease of use” the responses demonstrate low variability, suggesting that most participants agreed on the usability of 3D printers. The “intention to use” category had the lowest average score, reflecting some uncertainty about future engagement, but still showed a generally positive trend. Although participants expressed slightly more positive attitudes toward 3D printing and perceived ease of use than intentions to use it in the future, paired-samples t-tests indicated that the differences among the three categories (attitude, perceived ease of use, and intention to use) were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). At this point, it should be emphasized that the lack of statistical significance may not reflect the absence of a true effect, but rather be related to the small sample size, which reduces the ability to detect differences [79]. In any case, the results suggest that while learners are receptive to the technology, further support may be needed to translate positive attitudes and perceived ease of use into sustained behavioral intention.
In the attitude category, item 1 (“I like the idea of using 3D printers”) received the highest mean score of 3.20 and a standard deviation of 1.02, indicating strong enthusiasm among participants with relatively low variability. As shown in Figure 9, over 83% of respondents expressed agreement or strong agreement, suggesting that the concept of 3D printing was well received and positively framed within the learning activity.
The perceived ease of use construct was represented by item 5 (“Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me”), which also scored highly with a mean of 2.94 and a notably low standard deviation of 0.80. This reflects a shared perception among participants that technology is generally easy to learn and accessible. The mean and standard deviation suggest a generally positive expectation regarding the ease of learning to use 3D printers, with no strong disagreement among participants. As illustrated in Figure 10, 80% of participants agreed or strongly agreed, reinforcing the effectiveness of the multimodal instructional design in lowering technological barriers and building learner confidence.
However, item 6 (“I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future”) from the intention to use category revealed more diverse responses. The mean score was 2.54, the lowest among all items, and the standard deviation was 1.09, indicating greater dispersion. As shown in Figure 11, while 60% of participants expressed agreement, a significant portion remained neutral (22.86%) or disagreed (17.14%), suggesting ambivalence about future engagement. This variability may reflect limited prior exposure, uncertainty about practical applications, or a lack of confidence in independent use.
To provide a holistic view, Figure 12 presents the distribution of responses across all eight questionnaire items. The overall pattern confirms a strong positive reception in terms of attitude and ease of use, with consistently high mean scores and low variability.
Items 3 and 4, which fall under perceived ease of use, show particularly favorable results. For item 3 (“My interaction with 3D printers is clear and understandable”), 57.14% of participants agreed and 20.00% strongly agreed. For item 4 (“I believe it is easy to use 3D printers”), 48.57% agreed and 25.71% strongly agreed. These figures reflect a widespread perception of the technology as intuitive and user-friendly.
Item 5 (“Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me”) further reinforces this trend, with 60.00% agreeing and 20.00% strongly agreeing, while only 2.86% strongly disagreed and none disagreed. This suggests that the multimodal instructional design was effective in lowering technological barriers and building learner confidence.
However, the responses to the intention to use items (6–8) reveal greater heterogeneity compared to the other categories. For item 6 (“I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future”), 17.14% of participants strongly agreed and 42.86% agreed, while 22.86% remained neutral and 17.14% expressed disagreement. Item 7 (“I intend to encourage others to use 3D printers”) showed a similar pattern, with 25.71% strongly agreeing and 40.00% agreeing, but also 25.71% neutral responses. In item 8 (“I intend to be informed about 3D printers and use them in the future”), 28.57% strongly agreed and 37.17% agreed, while 22.86% were neutral and 11.42% expressed disagreement.
This substantial proportion of neutral responses (over 20%) suggests a degree of ambivalence regarding their intention to use 3D printing in the future or to encourage others to use it. This level of uncertainty is significant and warrants further consideration. Several factors may contribute to this ambivalence: for many participants, this was their first exposure to 3D printing technology, and a single hands-on session may not be sufficient to build the confidence required for independent use or advocacy. Additionally, the diverse backgrounds of adult learners in SCSs, including varying levels of technological proficiency, employment status, and prior experience with digital tools, may influence their readiness to envision practical applications of 3D printing in their personal or professional lives. These findings highlight the importance of providing ongoing support, repeated opportunities for engagement, and personalized training to help adult learners move from initial curiosity to sustained adoption and advocacy of new technologies.
Overall, the multimodal STEM activity proved effective in sparking interest and building foundational skills. The descriptive analysis of participant responses reveals a strong and consistent endorsement of 3D printing as an accessible and engaging educational tool. High levels of agreement across all categories, particularly in attitudes and perceived ease of use, demonstrate the effectiveness of the intervention in fostering interest, confidence, and a willingness to engage with new technologies. Participants’ strong engagement may be explained by the multimodal nature of the activity, which enabled them to interact with abstract scientific concepts both through computer-based visualization and tangible experimentation. While some variability was observed in participants’ intentions for future use, the overall trends point to a promising foundation for deeper integration of 3D printing in adult STEM education. These findings provide a solid basis for further exploration in the following sections.

5. Discussion

This study provides the first empirical evidence on adult learners’ acceptance and perceptions of 3D printing technology in SCSs. The findings indicate that participants generally viewed 3D printing as accessible, interesting, and easy to use, though some expressed hesitation about independent future use. Although the descriptive statistics suggest that “attitude” and “perceived ease of use” may be rated slightly higher than “intention to use,” paired-samples t-tests did not reveal statistically significant differences between the categories (p > 0.05). This outcome may reflect the limitations of the small sample size [79], which can reduce the ability to detect meaningful differences, even when meaningful trends are present. While the results do not offer strong statistical support for a more positive perception of 3D printing, they nonetheless indicate a positive trend in participants’ responses and support the need for further investigation with larger and more diverse samples.
These results directly address the study’s objective of capturing user perspectives during initial exposure to 3D printing in an alternative education context.
By investigating adult learners’ attitudes toward 3D printing technology, the study highlights the potential of integrating such technologies into adult learning environments. The results reveal generally positive perceptions, as participants found the technology accessible and engaging. Importantly, this is the first empirical study to examine 3D printing acceptance specifically within the context of Greek SCSs, which is an educational setting that remains underrepresented in the literature. This reinforces the study’s contribution to both adult education and educational technology research.
Moreover, this research fills a significant gap in the existing literature: to date, no studies have examined the use of STEM methodology in teaching scientific literacy or examined adult learners’ attitudes toward and willingness to adopt 3D printing technology within this unique and underserved educational context. Previous studies have investigated technology and 3D technology acceptance in other adult or professional learning environments, such as occupational therapy education [80], construction workers [81], home users [82], fashion design students [83], school teachers [70], rehabilitation clinicians [84], cognitive training for older adults [85], education for adults with intellectual disabilities [86], and education for visually impaired or blind youth [87]. Sayago et al. [88] similarly explored programming acceptance among adults with low formal education, emphasizing the importance of contextualized, inclusive approaches. These studies support the notion that attitudes toward technology can be positive even among populations with limited prior exposure, but they also highlight the need for sustained support and relevance to learners’ lived experiences.
Through hands-on activities that allow learners to design, test, and revise physical models related to scientific concepts, 3D printing transforms greater STEM topics into tangible, meaningful experiences. This approach promotes not only scientific understanding, but also critical thinking, creativity, and digital skills—essential attributes for personal and professional development in the 21st century. As a technological enabler, 3D printing enhances the inclusivity, relevance, and impact of STEM education for adult learners re-engaging with formal learning and offers a replicable model for innovation in alternative education settings.
The practical implications of this research are significant. For educators and policymakers, the positive reception of 3D printing among adult learners suggests that such technologies can be successfully introduced in marginalized educational settings, provided that adequate support and training are available. The multimodal instructional design, integrating digital modeling with hands-on manipulation, proved effective in engaging learners and could serve as a model for similar interventions in alternative education. This is particularly relevant given the increasing emphasis on digital and STEM competencies as essential skills for personal and professional development.
Despite these promising outcomes, several limitations should be acknowledged. The use of a small, convenience sample limits the generalizability of the findings. The measurement instrument, while adapted from validated scales, included only a few items per construct due to practical constraints, which may affect construct validity. Future research should employ more comprehensive instruments, incorporate qualitative methods such as interviews, and examine long-term impacts on learning and technology use.

6. Conclusions

This study examined adult learners’ perceptions of and responses to 3D printing technology by adult learners in Greek SCSs, an innovative adult education institution designed to combat early school leaving and promote lifelong learning. Grounded in constructivist and experiential learning theories, the hands-on activity centered on a physics experiment using a 3D-printed boat served as a powerful multimodal instructional tool, where learners transitioned from digital modeling to tangible manipulation of printed artifacts. This blend of visual, spatial, and kinesthetic engagement made abstract scientific concepts more accessible, engaging, and relevant to adult learners.
The analysis of the questionnaire responses, which demonstrated high internal reliability both at the aggregate level and within each individual category, reveals a positive trend about 3D printing in participants answers. They perceived it as accessible, interesting and easy to use. However, some participants expressed uncertainty about using the technology independently in the future. This hesitation may stem from a general lack of technological proficiency, current unemployment—which limits their ability to envision practical applications—or concerns about the future of certain traditional professions. In any case, these findings suggest a need for further training and support for adult learners, rather than reflecting any limitation of the educational method itself.
The proposed approach validated key principles of adult learning, including learner autonomy, relevance to real-life contexts, collaborative engagement, and meaningful experimentation. Furthermore, it provided a concrete example of how interdisciplinary STEM concepts can be effectively introduced in non-traditional educational settings. Overall, this research supports the adoption of 3D printing as a technological tool in SCSs. It aligns with the goals of scientific literacy by connecting theory to real-world experience and supporting active, inquiry-based learning.
Notably, this is the first empirical study to investigate the acceptance and perceptions of 3D printing technology among adult learners in Greek SCSs. By focusing on this unique and underserved educational context, the research fills a significant gap in the literature and offers a replicable model for integrating technology-enhanced STEM instruction in alternative education settings. The positive reception of 3D printing among participants highlights its potential to foster not only scientific understanding, but also critical thinking, creativity, and digital skills—attributes essential for personal and professional development in the 21st century.
Although the study’s scope was necessarily limited by sample size and the exploratory nature of the intervention, it provides a robust foundation for future research. Continued investigation, using more comprehensive instruments and qualitative methods, will be essential to deepen our understanding of learners’ experiences and the long-term impact of such educational innovations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R., A.K. and P.Z.; methodology, D.R., A.K. and P.Z.; validation, D.R. and P.Z.; investigation, D.R. and A.K.; data curation, D.R.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R., A.K. and P.Z.; writing—review and editing, A.K., T.G. and P.Z.; supervision, P.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Research Ethics Committee (R.E.C.) of the University of West Attica (UNIWA), during its 29th meeting held on 25 October 2024, reviewed the research protocol titled “Implementing Educational Robotics and STEM Approaches in Physics Education at Second Chance Schools” (Protocol No. 98762-29/10/2024). The Committee approved the protocol, confirming that it adheres to established ethical standards and institutional guidelines governing academic research. The study does not involve any experimentation on human subjects or the collection of personal data. All participants will be fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study and will provide their voluntary, informed consent.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SCSSecond Chance Schools
SDGScientific Dialogic Gathering
PBLProblem-based learning
PjBLProject-based learning
FFFFused Filament Fabrication

Appendix A

  • Questionnaire Items and Constructs
  • Attitude
  • Q1: I like the idea of using 3D printers
  • Q2: In my opinion it is better to be using 3D printers
  • Perceived ease of use
  • Q3: My interaction with 3D printers is clear and understandable
  • Q4: I believe that it is easy to use 3D printers
  • Q5: Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me
  • Behavioral intension to use
  • Q6: I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future
  • Q7: I intend to encourage others to use 3D printers
  • Q8: I intend to be informed about 3D printers and use them in the future

References

  1. European Commission. Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support. In Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving; Brussels, Belgium. 2013. Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/early-school-leaving-group2013-report_en.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  2. European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency. Tackling Early Leaving from Education and Training in Europe: Strategies, Policies and Measures. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg. 2014. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/33979 (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  3. Early Leavers from Education and Training. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Early_leavers_from_education_and_training (accessed on 28 May 2025).
  4. Hellenic Statistical Authority. Demographic Characteristics/2021. B05. Population-Housing Census 2021. Permanent Population by Sex, Education Level and Citizenship (Greece, Outside Greece). Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/el/statistics/-/publication/SAM03/- (accessed on 8 May 2025). (In Greek).
  5. European Commission. White Paper on Education and Training. Teaching and Learning Towards the Learning Society. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0a8aa7a-5311-4eee-904c-98fa541108d8/language-en (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  6. Hodolidou, E. The Multiliteracies Challenge in the Field of Adult Education: The case of the Greek Second Chance Schools. Int. J. Humanit. Annu. Rev. 2006, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Introducing INEDIVIM. Available online: www.inedivim.gr (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  8. Tsiboukli, A.; Phillips, Ν. Introduction in adult education. In Training of Adult Educators; Kokkos, A., Koutrouba, K., Eds.; Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, General Secretariat for Lifelong Learning, Institute for Continuing Adult Education (I.D.EK.E.): Athens, Greece, 2010; pp. 1–68. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  9. Hadjitheocharous, P. Introduction in adult education. In Training of Educators in Second Chance Schools; Karalis, T., Ed.; Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, General Secretariat for Lifelong Learning, Institute for Continuing Adult Education (I.D.EK.E.): Athens, Greece, 2010; pp. 10–33. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  10. Tsafos, B.; Chontolidou, E. Teaching methodology in Second Chance Schools. In Curriculum Standards for Second Chance Schools, 2nd ed.; Vekris, L., Chontolidou, E., Eds.; Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs: Athens, Greece, 2010; pp. 39–44. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  11. Halkia, K. Scientific Literacy: Literacy in Science and Technology. In Curriculum Standards for Second Chance Schools, 2nd ed.; Vekris, L., Chontolidou, E., Eds.; Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs: Athens, Greece, 2010; pp. 165–182. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  12. Martín-Cudero, D.; Guede-Cid, R.; Tolmos, P.; Cid-Cid, A.I. Development of a Mathematical Experience from a STEM and Sustainable Development Approach for Primary Education Pre-Service Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kantaros, A.; Ganetsos, T.; Piromalis, D. 3D and 4D Printing as Integrated Manufacturing Methods of Industry 4.0. Am. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2023, 16, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. To, T.T.; Al Mahmud, A.; Ranscombe, C. Teaching Sustainability Using 3D Printing in Engineering Education: An Observational Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Grigoroiu, M.C.; Tescașiu, B.; Constantin, C.P.; Țurcanu, C.; Tecău, A.S. Extended Learning through After-School Programs: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Promoting Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, L.; Antonenko, P.P.; Ritzhaupt, A.D.; MacFadden, B. Exploring the Role of 3D Printing and STEM Integration Levels in Students’ STEM Career Interest. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1262–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kit Ng, D.T.; Tsui, M.F.; Yuen, M. Exploring the Use of 3D Printing in Mathematics Education: A Scoping Review. Asian J. Math. Educ. 2022, 1, 338–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Magopoulos, G. Evaluation of Adult Education Programs: The Case of the Second Chance Schools. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, Department of Pedagogy and Primary Education, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece, 2011. (In Greek). [Google Scholar]
  19. Kokkos, A. Adult education: Tracing the field; Metaixmio: Athens, Greece, 2005. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  20. Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  21. Karaoglou, G. Exploring the Relationship Between Adult Learners’ Understanding of Physics Concepts and Laws and Their Level of Scientific Literacy. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece, 2015. (In Greek). [Google Scholar]
  22. Assem, H.D.; Nartey, L.; Appiah, E.; Aidoo, J.K. A Review of Students’ Academic Performance in Physics: Attitude, Instructional Methods, Misconceptions and Teachers Qualification. Eur. J. Educ. Pedagog. 2023, 4, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thomas, O.O.; Israel, O.O. Assessing the relative effectiveness of three teaching methods in the measurement of students’ performance in Physics. Int. J. Mater. Methods Technol. 2013, 1, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
  24. Halkia, K. Teaching the Physical Sciences: Theoretical Issues, Reflections, and Proposals, 8th ed. Pataki: Athens, Greece, 2021. (In Greek)
  25. Wu, H. Detecting student performance gaps in high school physics courses. Phys. Educ. 2024, 59, 015021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. OECD. PISA 2022 Results: Volume I and II—Country Notes: Greece. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/greece_a24e696b-en.html (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  27. Driver, R.; Oldham, V. A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Stud. Sci. Educ. 1986, 13, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kokkotas, P. Modern Approaches to Science Education: The Constructivist Approach to Teaching and Learning, 2nd ed.; Athens, Greece, 1998. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  29. Chuang, S. The applications of constructivist learning theory and social learning theory on adult continuous development. Perform. Improv. 2021, 60, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, H.M. Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2002, 33, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khadimally, S. Role of the Social Constructivist Theory, Andragogy, and Computer-Mediated Instruction (CMI) in Adult ESL Learning and Teaching Environments: How Students Transform into Self-Directed Learners through Mobile Technologies. In Research Anthology on Adult Education and the Development of Lifelong Learners; Information resources Management Association, Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 195–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zahara, L.; Adnyana, P.B.; Wesnawa, I.G.A.; Ariawan, I.P.W. Constructivism as a Foundation in Developing Physics Teaching Strategies. Kappa J. 2024, 8, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Potvin, P.; Hasni, A. Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2014, 50, 85–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marrero, M.E.; Gunning, A.M.; Germain-Williams, T. What is STEM education? Global Education Review 2014, 1, 996. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sanders, M. STEM, STEM education. STEMmania. Technol. Teach. 2009, 68, 20–26. Available online: https://www.teachmeteamwork.com/files/sanders.istem.ed.ttt.istem.ed.def.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  36. White, D.W. What is STEM education and why is it important? Fla. Assoc. Teach. Educ. J. 2014, 1, 1–8. Available online: http://www.fate1.org/journals/2014/white.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  37. Hasanah, U. Key definitions of STEM education: Literature review. Interdiscip. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2020, 16, e2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. McDonald, C.V. STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Sci. Educ. Int. 2016, 27, 530–569. [Google Scholar]
  39. Becker, K.; Park, K. Effect of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. J. STEM Educ. 2011, 12, 23–37. [Google Scholar]
  40. Samsudin, M.A.; Jamali, S.M.; Zain, A.N.M.; Ale Ebrahim, N. The Effect of STEM Project Based Learning on Self-Efficacy among High-School Physics Students. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2020, 17, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Potkonjak, V.; Gardner, M.; Callaghan, V.; Mattila, P.; Guetl, C.; Petrović, V.M.; Jovanović, K. Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Eguchi, A.; Uribe, L. Robotics to promote STEM learning: Educational robotics unit for 4th grade science. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ, USA, 11 March 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pachidis, T.; Vrochidou, E.; Kaburlasos, V.G.; Kostova, S.; Bonkovic, M.; Papic, V. Social robotics in education: State-of-the-art and directions. In International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria Danube Region; Aspragathos, N., Koustoumpardis, P., Moulianitis, V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 67, pp. 689–700. [Google Scholar]
  44. Katsanis, I.A.; Moulianitis, V.C.; Panagiotarakos, D.T. Design, Development, and a Pilot Study of a Low-Cost Robot for Child–Robot Interaction in Autism Interventions. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chatzopoulos, A.; Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Papoutsidakis, M. A Novel, Modular Robot for Educational Robotics Developed Using Action Research Evaluated on Technology Acceptance Model. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pagonis, K.; Zacharia, P.; Kantaros, A.; Ganetsos, T.; Brachos, K. Design, Fabrication and Simulation of a 5-dof Robotic Arm using Machine Vision. In Proceedings of the 2023 17th International Conference on Engineering of Modern Electric Systems (EMES), Oradea, Romania, 9–10 June 2023; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Katsanis, I.A.; Moulianitis, V.C. An Architecture for Safe Child–Robot Interactions in Autism Interventions. Robotics 2021, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Halkia, K.; Chaviara, A.T. Curriculum Framework for the Subject Area: Science and Technology Literacy, Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, General Secretariat for Lifelong Learning; Institute for Continuing Adult Education (I.D.EK.E.) for Second Chance Schools: Athens, Greece, 2013. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  49. Kollas, S. Scientific Literacy in Second Chance Schools: Science Teachers’ Training in Designing Curricula for Scientific Literacy. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Education, Department of Pedagogy and Primary Education, National and Capodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 2015. (In Greek). [Google Scholar]
  50. Tzampazi, A.; Seroglou, F. Teaching Science in Second Chance Schools: Two case studies inspired by philosophy and history of science. In Proceedings of the 1st European Regional IHPST Conference, Flensburg, Germany, 22–25 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. ScienceLit Project. Scientific Dialogic Gatherings Methodology; 2018. Available online: https://sciencelit.splet.arnes.si/files/2018/11/Metodology.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2025).
  52. Zarestky, J.; Vilen, L. Adult STEM Education for Democratic Participation. Adult Learn. 2023, 34, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anelli, C. Scientific Literacy: What Is It, Are We Teaching It, and Does It Matter? Am. Entomol. 2011, 57, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lavicza, Z.; Weinhandl, R.; Prodromou, T.; Anđić, B.; Lieban, D.; Hohenwarter, M.; Fenyvesi, K.; Brownell, C.; Diego-Mantecón, J.M. Developing and Evaluating Educational Innovations for STEAM Education in Rapidly Changing Digital Technology Environments. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bonorden, M.; Papenbrock, J. Evidence-Based Optimization of Classroom Teaching Units Using 3D Printers for Designing Models—From the 2D Picture to the 3D Flower Model. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Antunes, R.; Aguiar, M.L.; Gaspar, P.D. A Dynamic STEM-Driven Approach through Mobile Robotics to Enhance Critical Thinking and Interdisciplinary Skills for Empowering Industry 4.0 Competencies. Technologies 2023, 11, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Waite-Stupiansky, S. Jean Piaget’s Constructivist Theory of Learning. In Theories of Early Childhood Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 3–18. ISBN 9781003288077. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rigopouli, K.; Kotsifakos, D.; Psaromiligkos, Y. Vygotsky’s Creativity Options and Ideas in 21st-Century Technology-Enhanced Learning Design. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mishra, N.R. Constructivist Approach to Learning: An Analysis of Pedagogical Models of Social Constructivist Learning Theory. J. Res. Devpt 2023, 6, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ho, S.-J.; Hsu, Y.-S.; Lai, C.-H.; Chen, F.-H.; Yang, M.-H. Applying Game-Based Experiential Learning to Comprehensive Sustainable Development-Based Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Da Silva-Ovando, A.C.; Palma-Mendoza, J.A. Experiential Learning Labs for the Post-COVID-19 Pandemic Era. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hernández-Ramos, J.; Pernaa, J.; Cáceres-Jensen, L.; Rodríguez-Becerra, J. The Effects of Using Socio-Scientific Issues and Technology in Problem-Based Learning: A Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cabrera-Frías, L.; Córdova-Esparza, D.-M.; Romero-González, J.-A.; García-Ramírez, T.; López-Martínez, R.-E.; Terven, J.; Rodríguez-Peña, J.-J. The Use of 3D Printing and ICT in the Designing of Didactic Strategies to Foster Creative Thinking. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sukackė, V.; de, C. Guerra, A.O.P.; Ellinger, D.; Carlos, V.; Petronienė, S.; Gaižiūnienė, L.; Blanch, S.; Marbà-Tallada, A.; Brose, A. Towards Active Evidence-Based Learning in Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review of PBL, PjBL, and CBL. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rodrigues, A.L.; Batista, F.A.; Aragão, I.R.; Santos, L.P.C.; de Oliveira, M.J.A.; Koike, C.M.C.C.; Viana, D.M.; Yudi, J. A STEM Approach Concerning Educational Robotics in Interdisciplinary Teacher Training. In Proceedings of the 2024 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), Arequipa, Peru, 11–14 November 2024; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  66. Oyewo, O.A.; Ramaila, S.; Mavuru, L. Harnessing Project-Based Learning to Enhance STEM Students’ Critical Thinking Skills Using Water Treatment Activity. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kantaros, A.; Petrescu, F.; Abdoli, H.; Diegel, O.; Chan, S.; Iliescu, M.; Ganetsos, T.; Munteanu, I.; Ungureanu, L. Additive Manufacturing for Surgical Planning and Education: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chatzoglou, P.D.; Michailidou, V.N. A survey on the 3D printing technology readiness to use. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2585–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Slegers, K.; Krieg, A.M.; Lexis, M.A.S. Acceptance of 3D Printing by Occupational Therapists: An Exploratory Survey Study. Occup. Ther. Int. 2022, 2022, 4241907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Holzmann, P.; Schwarz, E.J.; Audretsch, D.B. Understanding the determinants of novel technology adoption among teachers: The case of 3D printing. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 45, 259–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dara, G. Schniederjans. Adoption of 3D-printing technologies in manufacturing: A survey analysis. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 287–298. [Google Scholar]
  72. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ware, J.E.; Snow, K.K.; Kosinksi, M.; Gandek, B. The SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide; The Health Institute, New England Medical Center: Boston, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhao, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, J. Understanding Teachers’ Adoption of AI Technologies: An Empirical Study from Chinese Middle Schools. Systems 2025, 13, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Papanastasiou, Ε.; Papanastasiou, Κ. Methodology of Educational Research; Self-Published: Nicosia, Cyprus, 2016. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  76. Creswell, J. Educational research. Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 2nd ed.; Iwn: Athens, Greece, 2011. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  77. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Gutenberg: Athens, Greece, 2017. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  78. Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Livingston, E.H.; Cassidy, L. Statistical power and estimation of the number of required subjects for a study based on the t-test: A surgeon’s primer. J. Surg. Res. 2005, 126, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Benham, S.; San, S. Student Technology Acceptance of 3D Printing in Occupational Therapy Education. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2020, 74, 7403205060p1–7403205060p7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mei, Y.; Liu, J.; Jia, L.; Wu, H.; Lv, J. Exploring the Acceptance of the Technical Disclosure Method Based on 3D Digital Technological Process by Construction Workers through the Perspective of TAM. Buildings 2023, 13, 2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hartmann, T.; Vanpoucke, E. User Acceptance of Technologies in Their Infancy: The Case of 3D Printing Business Models. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2017, 29, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Putri, V.; Prabawati, M. Application of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to The Use of 3D Digital Design (Case Study Fashion Design Results of 2 Fashion Design Students at Jakarta State University). Edumaspul J. Pendidik. 2023, 7, 6011–6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Benham, S.; DiDomenico, C.; Dluzneski, A.; Howley, E.; Curley, B.; Amy, K. 3D Printing Technology Acceptance through a Peer-Assisted Learning Continuing Education Course. J. Occup. Ther. Educ. 2024, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chang, H.J.; Min, S. Evaluation of 3D Apparel Design Spatial Visualization Training for Cognitive Function of Older Adults: Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Fash. Text. 2022, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Buehler, E.; Easley, W.; McDonald, S.; Comrie, N.; Hurst, A. Inclusion and education: 3D printing for integrated classrooms. In ASSETS 2015—Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility; Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Emeline, B.; Gilles, B. “Beyond 3D printers”: Understanding Long-Term Digital Fabrication Practices for the Education of Visually Impaired or Blind Youth. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference, ACM, Tokyo, Japan, 8–13 May 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sayago, S.; Bergantiños, A.; Forbes, P. Working Towards Fostering Programming Acceptance in the Everyday Lives of Older and Adult People with Low Levels of Formal Education: A Qualitative Case Study. In Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction Research with Older People; Sayago, S., Ed.; Human–Computer Interaction Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mti 09 00087 g001
Figure 1. Characteristics of effective adult learning.
Figure 1. Characteristics of effective adult learning.
Mti 09 00087 g001
Mti 09 00087 g002
Figure 2. Suggested approaches to teaching science and technology in SCSs.
Figure 2. Suggested approaches to teaching science and technology in SCSs.
Mti 09 00087 g002
Mti 09 00087 g003
Figure 3. Characteristics of the constructivist learning model.
Figure 3. Characteristics of the constructivist learning model.
Mti 09 00087 g003
Mti 09 00087 g004
Figure 4. Instructional strategies for STEM education.
Figure 4. Instructional strategies for STEM education.
Mti 09 00087 g004
Mti 09 00087 g005
Figure 5. Experimental setup for demonstrating buoyancy and Archimedes’ principle using a 3D-printed model.
Figure 5. Experimental setup for demonstrating buoyancy and Archimedes’ principle using a 3D-printed model.
Mti 09 00087 g005
Mti 09 00087 g006
Figure 6. Snapshot of the slicing process prior to the fabrication.
Figure 6. Snapshot of the slicing process prior to the fabrication.
Mti 09 00087 g006
Mti 09 00087 g007
Figure 7. Three-dimensional printed item upon the completion of the fabrication process.
Figure 7. Three-dimensional printed item upon the completion of the fabrication process.
Mti 09 00087 g007
Mti 09 00087 g008
Figure 8. Presentation of 3D printing technology at the SCS of Agioi Anargyroi, Attica.
Figure 8. Presentation of 3D printing technology at the SCS of Agioi Anargyroi, Attica.
Mti 09 00087 g008
Mti 09 00087 g009
Figure 9. Distribution of responses for item 1 “I like the idea of using 3D printers”.
Figure 9. Distribution of responses for item 1 “I like the idea of using 3D printers”.
Mti 09 00087 g009
Mti 09 00087 g010
Figure 10. Distribution of responses for item 5 “Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me”.
Figure 10. Distribution of responses for item 5 “Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me”.
Mti 09 00087 g010
Mti 09 00087 g011
Figure 11. Distribution of responses for item 6 “I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future”.
Figure 11. Distribution of responses for item 6 “I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future”.
Mti 09 00087 g011
Mti 09 00087 g012
Figure 12. Distribution of responses for all questionnaire items on 3D printing acceptance.
Figure 12. Distribution of responses for all questionnaire items on 3D printing acceptance.
Mti 09 00087 g012
Table 1. Selected instructional practices based on adult learning theories.
Table 1. Selected instructional practices based on adult learning theories.
Adult TheoryInstructional Practices
Andragogy
  • Active learning methodologies
  • Wide range of learning methods and increased autonomy to adults in determining the content of their educational experience
Education for Social Change
  • Dialog and discussion
  • Free and autonomous learning environments
Transformative Learning
  • Usage of adult learners’ experiences as a basis for critical reflection
  • Disorienting dilemmas, critical incident analysis, life-story sharing, engagement with literature sources, dialog etc.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics.
Table 2. Demographic characteristics.
FrequencyPercent
Gender Male1748.6
Female1851.4
Age <30822.9
30–451748.6
46–55617.1
>55411.4
Minimum22--
Maximum70--
Mean41.00--
St. Dev12.32--
Occupation Unemployed1131.4
Pensioner25.7
Civil servant38.6
Private employee1542.9
Self employed411.4
Total 35100
Table 3. Total Cronbach a.
Table 3. Total Cronbach a.
Cronbach aN (of Items)
0.8228
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for all survey items.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for all survey items.
Item No.Questionnaire ItemMeanSt. Dev
1I like the idea of using 3D printers3.201.02
2In my opinion. it is better to be using 3D printers2.771.14
3My interaction with 3D printers is clear and understandable2.890.87
4I believe it is easy to use 3D printers2.910.92
5Learning how to use 3D printers would be easy for me2.940.80
6I plan to use or intensify the use of 3D printers in the future2.541.09
7I intend to encourage others to use 3D printers2.800.99
8I intend to be informed about 3D printers and use them in the future2.771.11
Table 5. Mean scores, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subcategories.
Table 5. Mean scores, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subcategories.
ConstructsItemsMeanSt. Dev.Cronbach a
Attitude1–22.990.990.800
Perceived ease of use3–52.910.740.823
Intension to use6–82.700.940.852
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Radiopoulou, D.; Kantaros, A.; Ganetsos, T.; Zacharia, P. 3D Printing as a Multimodal STEM Learning Technology: A Survey Study in Second Chance Schools. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090087

AMA Style

Radiopoulou D, Kantaros A, Ganetsos T, Zacharia P. 3D Printing as a Multimodal STEM Learning Technology: A Survey Study in Second Chance Schools. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2025; 9(9):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090087

Chicago/Turabian Style

Radiopoulou, Despina, Antreas Kantaros, Theodore Ganetsos, and Paraskevi Zacharia. 2025. "3D Printing as a Multimodal STEM Learning Technology: A Survey Study in Second Chance Schools" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 9, no. 9: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090087

APA Style

Radiopoulou, D., Kantaros, A., Ganetsos, T., & Zacharia, P. (2025). 3D Printing as a Multimodal STEM Learning Technology: A Survey Study in Second Chance Schools. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(9), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090087

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop