Exploring radiography students’ perceptions of 3D-printed models as learning tools

This study aimed to examine radiography students’ perceptions of three-dimensional (3D) printed models as a learning tool in radiography education. Two 3D-printed models were designed, fabricated, and subsequently presented to students as tangible examples of how 3D printing could be applied in radiography education, after which students’ broader perceptions of the use of 3D-printed models as learning tools were assessed using a 12-item questionnaire. The questionnaire did not evaluate the design or educational effectiveness of the specific models presented. The first section assessed students’ general knowledge of 3D-printed models, as well as their preferences concerning the organs and imaging modalities where these models may be useful. The second section focused on students’ perceptions of 3D-printed models as learning tools, their educational applications, and their perceived benefits for learning. Cronbach’s α was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the eight Likert-type items in the second section. Responses to the Likert-type statements were compared across academic-year groups using Kruskal–Wallis tests. Holm correction was applied across for multiple comparisons, with statistical significance set at a Holm-adjusted p < 0.05. One hundred and eight ( n = 108) radiography students (female n = 73; male n = 35) participated in this study. The results indicated that most participants ( n = 73; 67.6%) reported limited attendance at workshops on the use of 3D-printed models in radiography. Most students indicated a preference for applying 3D-printed models in MRI and CT education, with ( n = 61; 56.5%) and ( n = 30; 27.8%), respectively. The Likert-type items demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.891, SE = 0.043, 95% CI [0.807, 0.974]). In general, students strongly agreed with the use of 3D-printed models for radiography education, with 86 (79.6%). Only a limited number of students expressed negative perceptions across the statements. Kruskal–Wallis tests found no statistically significant evidence of differences in responses among academic-year groups after Holm correction. Students demonstrated positive perceptions of integrating 3D-printed models as educational tools in radiography.