• 3D Learning
• STEM Education

3D Technology Transforms Learning

• SARAS-3D
• JUNE 03, 2024

Since 2020 the world has seen a significant upheaval in learning and global education. It has affected nearly 128 million school learners amplifying learning inequalities. The pandemic’s impact on education highlights an important fact: learning results from an individual’s improved performance due to inquiry engagement and participation.

While aging and learning go hand in hand learning is not a linear process and does not merely depend on the biological maturation of an individual's brain. The brain is continuously changing and adapting to the environment making learning a lifelong process (Marjan Laal 2011). Through these experiences the brain's plasticity facilitates the learning process (Cantor et al. 2018). As the shape of the brain changes the active process of learning takes place (Pernia-Espinoza et al. 2021). This is the basis of education. Therefore learning should occur in a more dynamic system where individuals can think act and participate effectively (Smith 2016). Conventional teaching methods rely on rote memorization to temporally achieve a superficial acquaintance of knowledge. We now know that rote memorization is ineffective because it fails to help students understand the underlying concepts of the topic and so students struggle to retain knowledge (Yehudit et al., 2003; Klemm, 2007).

Conceptual learning is activated through experience and real-world application. To achieve this, students are often asked to imagine an object in the teaching space. Though some students can depict 3D objects in their minds, this is not the case for all. To help all students visualize objects, it is imperative to create active environments that provide 3D visualization and interactions with the objects. These self-directed environments are constructive and cumulative to support the development of the brain through plasticity. Thus, visualization and interactions in learning increase pedagogical performance and uplift the students' learning results (Biggs, 1999; Yehudit et al., 2003).

In the past, there was a timid proliferation of technology in education. But now that students have more pressure to perform well academically, this expectancy has led to the widespread adoption of technology in the classrooms. The technology has not only emerged as a delivery mechanism for reading, writing, and calculating, but it has provided a virtual space for learning. Virtual spaces are 2D or 3D computer-generated environments that depict parts of the physical world or imaginary sceneries. It is now the cornerstone of the new way of learning with technology.

Why 3D?

Students learning with 3D vision significantly achieved better results (Amin et al., 2020; de Boer, 2016) than those working in 2D. That’s because there is a superficial engagement with the 2D visualizations with more superficial and passive knowledge transfer. Learning in 3D makes learning more lively, real, and meaningful as it involves spatial thinking that influences learning effectiveness (Gagnier et al. 2021). When the content can be explored interactively, it supports the growth of knowledge and profound understanding. Independent hands-on experience has a stronger impact on students' engagement (Chatterjee, 2015). It reduces certain degrees of abstraction through simulators and, thus, facilitates the understanding of complex knowledge. Moreover, it allows more significant involvement, motivation, and interdisciplinarity. When students use the physical models as a learning tool, they are more successful in learning the concept due to aided visual perception skills. Better understanding is associated with the students who hold physical models in their hands than they could accomplish merely from viewing images on a printed page (Romanek, 2008; Harris, 2009). Handling objects simplifies complex concepts and supports making abstract observations quickly, thus enabling students to develop their language where they can talk about new concepts (Chatterjee and Hannan, 2015). 3D learning breaks apart a complex topic into simpler pieces. It demonstrates each step tangibly, enabling students to be active investigators of their world, where they learn best by exploring and connecting to the world around them (Pekel et al. 2020). Object-based learning strengthens brain development because the sensory experience can lead to a more memorable learning experience. The handling of a 3D model can help with the theories of object-based learning, which involves the active integration of models into the learning environment (Hafeez et al., 2021). Hands-on learning represents a constructivist approach in which the students develop their knowledge and understanding through interaction. The student is responsible for their learning, which makes their learning important to them (Cridlin, 2007). Self-directed learning is the most important skill for developing young minds to become lifelong learners. Learning with Saras-3D provides complete immersive academics that facilitate an engaging learning experience. Knowledge is transferred not only through visualizations but also through a hands-on experience that allows the student to grab and hold the model as they alter, rotate, and explore. This enables participants to make decisions (communications, analyses, evaluations, revisions) that cannot be made as conveniently in any individual mode alone (Oti et al., 2021). Learning with 3D models can act as a personal learning pathway that can address gaps in knowledge, challenge students, and promote long-term memory retention.

• Veiga, Francisco José Miranda; ANDRADE, António Manuel Valente de. Critical Success Factors in Accepting Technology in the Classroom. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 16(18):4-22, (2021). ISSN 1863-0383. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i18.23159. [Google Scholar]
• Pernia-Espinoza, A; Sanz-Garcia, FJ; Martinez-de-Pison-Ascacibar, F; Navaridas-Nalda, F. Active learning methodologies in STEM degrees jeopardized by COVID19. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 689-695 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9454080
• Wibawa, B; Syakdiyah, H; Siregar, S; Jenny. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2021. 2331, 060002. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0045380
• Smith, DP. Active learning in the lecture theatre using 3D printed objects. F1000Research. 5:61. (2016). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7632.2. [Google Scholar]
• de Boer, IR; Wesselink, PR; Vervoorn, JM. Student performance and appreciation using 3D vs. 2D vision in a virtual learning environment. Eur J Dent Educ. 20(3):142-147. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12152. [Google Scholar]
• Eysenck, MW. Fundamentals of cognition. Psychology, Hove. 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Biggs, J. Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. 1999. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
• Harris, MA; Peck, RF; Colton, S, et al. A combination of hand-held models and computer imaging programs helps students answer oral questions about molecular structure and function: a controlled investigation of student learning. CBE Life Sci Educ. 8(1):29–43. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-07-0039. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chatterjee, HJ; Hannan, L. Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Routledge. 2015. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
• Romanek, D; Lynch, B. Touch and the Value of Object Handling: Final Conclusions for a New Sensory Museology. In Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Edited by H. J. Chatterjee. Oxford and New York: Berg, (2008). [Google Scholar]
• Dori, YJ; Barak, M. Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technol Soc. 4(1):61–74 (2001). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
• Laal, Marjan. Lifelong Learning: What does it Mean?. , 28(none), 470–474. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.090
• Cantor, Pamela; Osher, David; Berg, Juliette; Steyer, Lily; Rose, Todd. Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, (), 1–31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649
• Klemm, William R. What Good Is Learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007 61-73 (2007).
• Gagnier, KM; Holochwost, SJ; Fisher, KR. Spatial thinking in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Elementary teachers' beliefs, perceptions, and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1–32 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21722
• Pekel, Feyzi; Hasenekoğlu, Prof. Dr. İsmet. An effective tool to deal with misconceptions: Conceptual change approach (2020).
• Cridlin, D Leah. Proceedings of the International Laser Safety Conference - San Francisco, California, USA. The importance of hands-on learning. 151–156 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5056625
• Amin, Hafeez Ullah; Ousta, Firas; Yusoff, Mohd Zuki; Malik, Aamir Saeed. Modulation of cortical activity in response to learning and long-term memory retrieval of 2D verses stereoscopic 3D educational contents: Evidence from an EEG study, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 114, 106526 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106526. [Reference source]
• Dori, Yehudit Judy; Belcher, John; Bessette, Mark; Danziger, Michael; McKinney, Andrew; Hult, Erin. Technology for active learning. , 6(12), 44–49 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1369-7021(03)01225-2
• Oti, Alfred; Crilly, Nathan. Immersive 3D sketching tools: Implications for visual thinking and communication. Computers & Graphics, 94(), 111–123 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2020.10.007