This study, conducted at a small undergraduate institution, compares the use of a three-dimensional (3D) printed model, a two-dimensional (2D) photo printed on paper, and an interactive computer model in the understanding of geoscience concepts. First-year undergraduate students were divided into four groups, each corresponding to a different instructional modality used to study a training terrain: (1) the paper group viewed a 2D photo of the terrain, (2) the computer group interacted with a digital display of the terrain, (3) the 3D group examined a 3D-printed model of the terrain, and (4) the integrated group had access to all three learning formats. Participants completed a knowledge test and learning experience survey immediately after studying the training terrain, and again two weeks later. All groups showed declines in knowledge test performance over time. Although differences between groups were not statistically significant, the integrated group demonstrated numerically higher knowledge test scores. Regarding students’ perceived learning, those in the 3D-printed group reported more positive experiences compared to the paper and computer groups. Statistical analyses confirmed the differences, but no effects of session or interaction were found. While this study did not directly investigate student experiences with the integrated use of all modalities, the findings suggest that each format offers advantages that together may enhance knowledge retention and the overall learning experience. Given the small effect and sample size, these findings merit further investigation with higher statistical power.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Szukala et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: