3D printing applications through peer-assisted learning and interprofessional education approaches

Sara Eickman Benham; Jeffrey Bush; Breanna  Curley

doi:10.11157/fohpe.v23i3.591

Authors

Sara Eickman Benham Moravian University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2102-6678
Jeffrey Bush Moravian University
Breanna Curley Moravian University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v23i3.591

Keywords:

interprofessional education, 3D printing, peer-assisted learning, occupational therapy

Abstract

Introduction: Although 3D printing offers customised assistive technology devices at relatively low costs to address the access needs of individuals with disabilities, implementation barriers exist to achieve widespread technology adoption. To improve 3D technology acceptance and to better prepare future clinicians, peer-assisted learning (PAL) was undertaken between occupational therapy (OT) students and students with expertise in 3D printing to work to address real-life patient functional problems.

Methods: 3D printing technology acceptance was measured between cohorts of OT students (Cohort Year 2020, n = 31; Cohort Year 2021, n = 32) without and with PAL integration approaches, respectively, at the conclusion of the 15-week term at project completion.

Results: After the structured interprofessional PAL modules, Cohort Year 2021 improved in perception of Usefulness (p = 0.023) as compared to Cohort Year 2020, while the Ease of Use (p = 0.095), Attitude Toward Using (p = 0.313) and Intention to Use (p = 0.271) categories did not significantly differ between cohort years.

Conclusions: PAL modules may improve perceptions of 3D printing Usefulness among OT students, however Ease of Use should continue to be explored as both 2020 and 2021 cohort average perceptions were neutral related to 3D printing technology. Identifying ideal training and mentoring approaches may alleviate the Ease of Use barriers to integration of this technology within both the classroom and practice settings and benefit patients.

Author Biography

Sara Eickman Benham, Moravian University

Sara Benham is an Assistant Professor of Occupational Therapy in the Rehabilitation Sciences Department at Moravian University. She has worked for over 15 years as an Occupational Therapist in inpatient rehabilitation, currently at Good Shepherd Rehabilitation in Allentown, PA. Her specialization is in assistive technology and she holds an advanced certification as an Assistive Technology Practitioner (ATP) from the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA). Sara directs her research in pursuit of how technology may enable clients to increase participation in meaningful occupations. She has peer-reviewed publications on a variety of technological enhancements for performance across the lifespan, including telerehabilitation, virtual reality, electronic tablet technologies, aids for community mobility, 3D printing, and has published a textbook chapter on applications of technology for pediatrics. Sara has presented her work nationally and at the state level. In regards to leadership, Sara serves as the Technology Coordinator for the American Association of Occupational Therapy (AOTA) Rehabilitation & Disability Special Interest Section (SIS), as a reviewer for the American Journal of Occupational Therapy, and serves on the Executive Committee for the Technology in Rehabilitation Networking Group of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (ACRM).

References

Abdelkhalek, N., Hussein, A., Gibbs, T., & Hamdy, H. (2010). Using team-based learning to prepare medical students for future problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 32(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903548539

Bednar, L. (2012). Teaching case using a research in technical and scientific communication class to teach essential workplace skills. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2208322

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Benham, S., & San, S. (2020). Student technology acceptance of 3D printing in occupational therapy education. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.035402

Brooks, C. (2008). Community connections: Lessons learned developing and maintaining a computer science service-learning program. Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Bulletin, 40(1), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352256

Buehler, E., Comrie, N., Hoffman, M., McDonald, S., & Hurst, A. (2016). Investigating the implications of 3D printing in special education. Association for Computer Machinery Transactions on Accessible Computing, 8(11), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2870640

Connors, R. J. (1982). The rise of technical writing instruction in America. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12(4), 329–352.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Dolmans, D., Michaelsen, L., Van Merrienboer, J., & van der Vleuten, C. (2015). Should we choose between problem-based learning and team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Medical Teacher, 37(4), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.948828

Duffy, J., Tsang, E., & Lord, S. M. (2000). Service learning in engineering: What, why, and how? Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--8694

Ford, J. D., Paretti, M., Kotys-Schwartz, D., Howe, S., & Ott, R. (2021). New engineers’ transfer of communication activities from school to work. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2021.3065854

Gagnon, M. P., Orruño, E., Asua, J., Abdeljelil, A. B., & Emparanza, J. (2012). Using a modified technology acceptance model to evaluate healthcare professionals' adoption of a new telemonitoring system. Telemedicine and E-Health, 18(1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0066

Gleason, B. L., Peeters, M. J., Resman-Targoff, B. H., Karr, S., McBane, S., Kelley, K., Thomas, T., & Denetclaw, T. H. (2011). An active-learning strategies primer for achieving ability-based educational outcomes. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(9), Article 186. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe759186

Gupta, N., Castillo-Laborde, C., & Landry, M. D. (2011). Health-related rehabilitation services: Assessing the global supply of and need for human resources. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), Article 276. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-276

Halekoh, U., & Højsgaard, S. (2014). A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: The R package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i09

Henning, J. M., Weidner, T. G., & Jones, J. (2006). Peer-assisted learning in the athletic training clinical setting. Journal of Athletic Training, 41(1), 102–108.

Hunzeker, M., & Ozelie, R. (2021). A cost-effective analysis of 3D printing applications in occupational therapy practice. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9(1), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1751

Janson, R., Burkhart, K., Firchau, C., Hicks, K., Pittman, M., Yopps, M., Hatfield, S., & Garabrant, A. (2020). Three-dimensional printed assistive devices for addressing occupational performance issues of the hand: A case report. Journal of Hand Therapy, 33(2), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.03.025

Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE Computer Society. (2013). Computer science curricula 2013: Curriculum guidelines for undergraduate degree programs in computer science. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534860

Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53(3), 983–997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558

Keijsers, C. J. P. W., Dreher, R., Tanner, S., Forde-Johnston, C., Thompson, S., & The Special Interest Group Education, IPE section, EUGMS. (2016). Interprofessional education in geriatric medicine. European Geriatric Medicine, 7(4), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2016.01.011

Ketikidis, P., Dimitrovski, T., Lazuras, L., & Bath, P. A. (2012). Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics Journal, 18(2), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211435425

Linos, K., Herman, S., & Lally, J. (2003). A service-learning program for computer science and software engineering. Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE), 35(3), 30–34. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/961511.961523

Liu, L., Miguel Cruz, A., Rios Rincon, A., Buttar, V., Ranson, Q., & Goertzen, D. (2015). What factors determine therapists’ acceptance of new technologies for rehabilitation: A study using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(5), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.923529

Loda, T., Erschens, R., Loenneker, H., Keifenheim, K. E., Nikendei, C., Junne, F., Zipfel, S., & Herrmann-Werner, A. (2019). Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning: A scoping review. PLoS One, 14(9), Article e0222224.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222224

Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y

McGrath, C., Ellis, M., Harney-Levine, S., Wright, D., Williams, E. A., Hwang, F., & Astell, A. (2017). Investigating the enabling factors influencing occupational therapists’ adoption of assisted living technology. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 80(11), 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022617711669

McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2013). McKeachie's teaching tips. Cengage Learning.

Passow, H. J., & Passow, C. H. (2017). What competencies should undergraduate engineering programs emphasize? A systematic review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 475–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20171

Patterson, R. M., Salatin, B., Janson, R., Salinas, S. P., & Mullins, M. J. (2020). A current snapshot of the state of 3D printing in hand rehabilitation. Journal of Hand Therapy, 33(2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2019.12.018

Phillips, C. R., & Trainor, J. E. (2014). Millennial students and the flipped classroom. Proceedings of ASBBS, 21(1), 519–530. http://www.asbbs.org/files/ASBBS2014/PDF/P/Phillips_Trainor(P519-530).pdf

Roback, P., & Legler, J. (2021). Beyond multiple linear regression: Applied generalized linear models and multilevel models in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429066665

Schwartz, J. K., Caceres, Y., Centeno, A., Cruz, V., Gutierrez, J., & Orozco, N. (2020). Impact of pillbox customization on device satisfaction and medication adherence. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4, Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S1-PO9409

Sevenhuysen, S., Thorpe, J., Molloy, E., Keating, J., & Haines, T. (2017). Peer-assisted learning in education of allied health professional students in the clinical setting: A systematic review. Journal of Allied Health, 46(1), 26–35. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asahp/jah/2017/00000046/00000001/art00004#expand/collapse

Tan, B., Yeh, I., & Liang, P. (2021). Occupational therapy students’ experiences of team-based learning: A multi-year study. Journal of Occupational Therapy Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.26681/jote.2021.050108

Tan, J., & Phillips, J. (2005). Incorporating service learning into computer science courses. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(4), 57–62. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.995.5505&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249

Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Rutledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603678

Tsai, J. M., Cheng, M. J., Tsai, H. H., Hung, S. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2019). Acceptance and resistance of telehealth: The perspective of dual-factor concepts in technology adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.003

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 169–332. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Whitman, N. A., & Fife, J. D. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1988 (ED305016). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED305016

Zachry, A. H., Nash, B. H., & Nolen, A. (2017). Traditional lectures and team-based learning in an occupational therapy program: A survey of student perceptions. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 5(2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1313

Zentz, S. E., Kurtz, C. P., & Alverson, E. M. (2014). Undergraduate peer-assisted learning in the clinical setting. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(3), S4–S10. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20140211-01